,%.  ^Tc- 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TFST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


^  r/. 


M/j 


^ 


1.0 


1.1 


|2j8     125 

12^2 


Ef     ■!£     12.0 


—    6" 


1.8 


11.25  i  1.4   i  1.6 


7  ^M 


7 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  145S0 

(716)  872-4503 


' 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


iV 


Technical  and  Bibliographic:  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographlques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  imaoes  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  sig.'iificantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checiced  below. 


0 


D 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couveiture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommagde 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur^  et/ou  pelliculAe 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  g6ographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  init  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I      I    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 


rri    Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 


D 


along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serr^e  peut  causer  de  i'ombre  ou  de  la 

distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intArieure 

Blanli  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutAes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  t«xia, 
mais,  lorsque  ceia  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'unt 
pas  4tA  film6es. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentairas  supplAmentaires; 


L'institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6ti  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mithode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqufo  ci-dessous. 


I      I   Coloured  pages/ 


D 


Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagtes 

Psges  restored  and/oi 

Pages  restauries  et/ou  pelliculAes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxet 
Pages  dicoior^es,  tachet6es  ou  piqu6es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ddtachies 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  inigale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  matdriel  supplimentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponibie 


I  I  Pages  damaged/ 

I  I  Psges  restored  and/or  laminated/ 

I  I  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I  I  Pages  detached/ 

I  I  Showthrough/ 

r~~|  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I  I  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

I  I  Only  edition  available/ 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure. 
etc.,  ont  *t^  film^es  A  nouveau  de  fapon  it 
obtenir  la  meiiieure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film*  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu*  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


/T 


26X 


30X 


12X 


16X 


»X 


24X 


28X 


] 


32X 


The  copy  filmed  her*  hat  b««n  roproducad  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

University  of  British  Columbia  Library 


L'exemplaire  fllmA  fut  reprodult  grice  A  la 
ginirositA  de: 

University  of  British  Columbia  Library 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  Iteeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  At6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  netteti  de  l'exemplaire  film*,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  — ^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimie  sont  filmis  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  solt  par  la 
dernlAre  page  qui  comporra  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration.  solt  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmAs  en  commenpant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symbolcs  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ^>  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbole  V  sUgnifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc..  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hend  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
fiimAs  A  des  taux  de  reduction  diff^rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clich6,  il  est  film*  A  partir 
de  I'angle  sup^rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mdthode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

r, -TJTv^" 


V    < 


r 


f%| 


"     asrr-r' 


DBPARTHBlfT  Oy  STATE. 


eORRESPONDEKCE 


pojrcRBmNo 


PKNDWS  BETWEES  GREAT  BRITAIN 


» 


AStt 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


TEAKSUrma,  .^  ^  sB^^^  j^  ,^^„^^^  ^  ^  Blfflo^txjOK. 


WASHINGTON. 

CJOVBBNMBNT  PBINTINO   OFFICE 
1870. 


^'*-;V. 


I,'      ^    ^\,^! 


QU 


i^'i>^^t~!i/im 


iiiAA  %f 


DEPARTMENT    OF    STATE. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


CONCERN  tN(} 


QUESTIONS  PENDLNG  BETWEEN  GREAT  BRITAIN 


AND 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


TRANSMITTED  TO  THE  SENATE  IN  OBEDIENCE  TO  A  RESOLUTION. 


WASHI     aTON. 
GOVEENMENT   PP    NTING    OFFICE. 
^  1870. 


'S^J 


n  J- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Department  of  State, 

WaHhingfon,  July  1;$,  1870. 

The  Secretai-y  of  State,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resohitioii  adopted 
by  tlie  Senate  ou  the  8th  instant,  requesting  the  President  to  conuniini- 
cate  to  that  body,  if  compatible  with  the  public  interest,  copies  of  any 
correspondence  between  the  United  States  and  (rreat  Britain  concerning 
questions  pending  between  the  two  countries,  not  heretofore  communi- 
cated, has  the  honor  to  lay  before  the  President  the  papers  mentioned  in 
the  annexed  descriptive  list. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

HAMILTON  PISH. 
The  President. 


List  of  papers. 

No.  1.  jNIr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Motley,  No.  110,  December  22,  1809.  The 
Senate  having  called  for  correspondence  between  the  United  States  and 
Clresit  Britain,  Mr.  Fish  has  sent  Lord  Clarendon's  note  of  November  G, 
but  has  not  sent  the  "  Notes,"  because  there  was  nothing  to  indicate  that 
they  contained  the  oflQcial  views  of  her  Majesty's  government. 

No.  2.  Mr.  Motley  to  Mr.  Fish,  No.  210,  January  13,  1870.  Acknowl 
edging  Mr.  Fish's  No.  119.  Account  of  an  interview  with  Lord  Claren- 
don, in  whicli  the  subjects  of  the  naturalization  treaty,  the  San  Juan 
water  boundary,  and  the  Alabama  claims  were  discussed.  Lord  Clar- 
endon regards  the  course  of  the  United  States  upon  water  boundary 
convention  as  discourteous,  and  thinks  jMr.  Fish  should  have  sent  the 
British  "Notes"  to  the  Senate. 

No.  3.  Lord  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Thornton,  No.  22,  January  21,  1870. 
Expressing  surprise  that  no  communication  lias  been  made  to  the  British 
government  about  the  San  Juan  water  boundary  convention. 

No.  4.  Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Motley,  No.  149,  February  14, 1870.  Explaining 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  "Notes"  were  received,  and  the 
reasons  which  this  government  had  for  regarding  them  as  unoflicial ; 
and  instructing  Mr.  ^Motley  to  inquire  whether  they  are  to  be  regarded 
as  official. 

No.  5.  Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Jlotley,  No.  l.")l,  February  15,  1870.  Lord 
Clarendon's  charge  of  discourtesy  as  to  the  water  boundary  convention 
excites  regret.  The  course  ol"  this  government  has  not  proceeded  from 
a  want  of  desire  to  observe  strict  courtesy  toward  the  governnu'iit  of 
Great  Britain.    As  to  tlie  Sau  Jiiiui  water  boundary,  the  Bt  itisli  gov- 


«IMMM 


MMI 


s. 


QUKSTIONH    PENUINO    UliTWKKN    TIIK 


f:^' 


urninent  were  informt'd  from  tlu'  oiitscf  l»y  tliis  ^jovcnniu'iit  (liat,  iintii 
the  naturalization  Jiut'stion  was  sottlod,  any  atti>mi)t  to  scttlo  »)tlior 
queHtious  would  be  unavailinji;.  The  iiatiirali/atioii  (picstion  was  not 
settled  when  the  time  lor  exchanging  ratifications  of  the  water  boundary 
convention  expired. 

No.  0.  Mr.  Motley  to  Mr.  Fish,  No.  L'74,  Mareh  H),  1S7(>.  lias  read 
to  Lord  Clarendon  Mr.  Fish's  No.  l*)!  and  left  co])y.  Lord  ('.  «'xi)ressed 
Batisfaetion. 

No.  7.  :Mr.  Motley  to  Mr.  Fish,  No.  278,  March  17,  1870.  Further  as 
to  the  "Notes,"  inclosing  copy  of  Mr.  Motley's  note  to  Lonl  Clarendon 
under  the  instructions  in  Mr.  Fish's  No.  140. 

No.  8.  :Mr.  Motley  to  Mr.  Fish,  No.  282,  March  11),  1870.  Inclosing  a 
note  from  Lord  Clarendon  as  to  the  character  to  be  given  to  the  "Notes." 
They  represent  the  views  of  her  Majesty's  government,  and  are  in  the 
nature  of  nu  historical  statement. 

No.  9.  Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  INIotley,  No.  190,  April  25, 1870.    Acknowledg 
ing  receipt  of  Mr.  Motley's  No.  282,  commenting  upon  Lord  Clarendon's 
note  iu  Mr.  Motley's  No.  282,  and  concluding  that  this  government  will 
(unless  invited  by  her  Majesty's  government  to  a  different  course)  regard 
the  "Notes"  as  no  part  of  the  otticial  correspondence. 

No.  10.  Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Motley,  No.  211,  June  10, 1870.    Transmitting 
copy  of  II  note  (dated  May  24, 1870)  from  Lord  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Thorn 
ton  about  the  "Notes."    Her  Majesty's  government  agi  >e  with  Mr.  Fish 
that  it  is  not  expedient  to  prolong  the  discussion  on  points  on  which 
there  is  little  hope  of  being  able  to  agree. 


:a' 


4  • 


No.  1. 


Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Motley. 


B 


No.  119.J  Depabtivient  OF  State, 

Washington,  December  22, 1869. 

Sib  :  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  20th  instant  "  resolved 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  commnuicate  to 
the  Senate,  if  in  his  opinion  not  incompatible  with  the  public  interests, 
copies  of  any  correspondence  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  concerning  questions  pending  between  the  two  countries,  since 
the  rejection  of  the  claims  convention  by  the  Senate." 

In  response  to  this  resolution,  the  President  has,  this  morning,  sent  to 
the  Senate  a  message,*  of  which  I  Inclose  a  copy,  together  with  a  list  of 
the  correspondence  accompanying  it. 

You  will  observe  that  while  the  note  of  Lord  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Thorn- 
ton, of  the  Gth  of  November  last,  referred  to  in  your  No.  168,  is  made 
public,  the  paper  entitled  "  Notes"  on  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  to  Mr.  Motley, 
of  25th  of  September,  1869,  respecting  the  Alabama,  &c.,  claims,  also 
referred  to  in  your  No.  168,  does  not  accompany  the  President's  message. 
It  is  perhaps  proper  that  an  explanation  should  be  made  of  the  reason 
for  this  omission. 


*  For  message  of  tlio  Prcsirtont,  see  Seuato  Executive  Document  No.  10,  forty-first 
Congress,  second  sessiou. 


ii^^«j|js^^»,g^tjB!vti^^M^l 


R^" 


UNITKD    STATICS    AND    OREAT     URITAIN.  3 

When  .Mr.  Thornton,  in  obedionco  to  his  instructions,  anil  at  my  n» 
quest,  Manded  mo  a  copy  of  the  "  Notrs "  (whicili  you  will  observe  are 
not  tiated  or  sigue*!)  ho  left  with  me  no  written  paper  to  indicate 
that  they  were  to  be  regarded  definitively  and  otllcially  as  tlie  views  of 
her  JVIajesty's  government  on  the  matters  discussed  in  them.  And  since 
Lord  Clarendon,  in  his  uote  of  the  Cth  of  November,  had  exi)ressly  de- 
clined to  follow  me  in  the  discussion  of  the  issues  jjresented  by  my  No. 
70,  of  the  ',*5th  September  last,  I  was  f«)rced  to  tJie  conclusion  that  her 
Majesty's  oJ^vernment  do  not  desire  this  government  to  regard  the 
"Notes"  as  a  response  to  the  views  which  you  were  instructed  to  pre- 
sent to  Lord  Clarendon,  and  that  therefore  I  should  uot  bo  justified  in 
giving  that  character  to  it  by  transmitting  it  to  the  Senate  as  a  part  of 
the  "  correspondence." 

You  will,  when  an  opportunity  offers,  nmke  this  explanation  to  Lord 
Clarendon. 

I  am,  sir,  your  oboifient  servant, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 

John  Lotiirop  Motlky,  Es<i.,  etc.,  dr.,  ttc 


No.  2. 


Mr.  Motley  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Received  .January  20,  1870.] 

No.  210. 1  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  January  13,  1870. 

Sib:  Eeferring  to  your  No.  Ill),  of  the  i'2d  of  December,  I  have  the 
honor  to  state  that  I  had  a  long  conversation  with  Lord  Clarendon  at 
the  Foreign  Offico  on  the  12th  instant. 

In  answer  to  a  question  concerning  the  proposed  bill  on  the  subject 
of  naturalization,  I  understood  him  to  say  that  it  was  nearly  ready  and 
would  be  placed  before  Parliament  at  an  early  day  in  the  coming  ses- 
sion. 

It  will  probably  embody  such  legislation  as  may  be  necessary  to  give 
effect  to  the  principles  of  the  protocol  of  the  9th  October,  1868,  on  this 
subject,  between  the  United  States  government  and  that  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, so  that  the  protocol  may  be  connected  into  a  treaty,  while  th«^ 
variety  of  details  embraced  in  the  elaborate  report  of  the  commission  on 
naturalization,  and  which  have  such  extensive  ramifications  throughout 
the  complex  [system]  of  communities,  colonies,  and  dependencies  which 
make  up  the  British  Empire,  might  be  left  for  future  legislation. 

I  expressed  satisfaction  at  this  prospect,  saying  that  the  United 
States  government  was  anxious  to  see  this  arrangement  completed. 

His  lordship  answered  by  expressing  his  regret  that  there  did  not 
seem  to  be  the  same  anxiety  at  Washington  to  complete  the  arrange- 
ment which  had  been  made  in  regard  to  the  water  boundary,  appear- 
ances seeming  to  indicate  that  the  convention  for  leaving  the  dispute 
to  arbitration  would  not  be  ratified  or  even  acted  upon  by  the  Senate, 
a  result  which  he  considered  would  be  discourteous  to  her  Majesty's 


m 


*Xsi, 


4  QUESTIONS    PKNDINO    BETWEEN    THE 

goveriiiiicnt.  1  replied  tlint  the  twelve  inoiitlis  I'nr  rutitlcatioii  iiad  not 
yet  expired ;  that  wo  had  dates  by  mail  only  to  the  .'(iHtof  Decemher, 
and  by  telegraph  to  the  lOthot'Jaiiuary;  and  that  it  woidd  be  bi>tter  to 
wait  I'or  the  result.  I  had  been  instructed,  on  leavinjy  the  IFnitcd 
States,  to  sjiy  that  the  convention  had  been  considered  in  the  Senate; 
which  body  had,  however,  adjourned  without  coming;  to  a  vote  upon  it, 
but  that,  in  the  usual  order  of  business,  it  would  be  before  the  Senate 
when  Congress  should  reassemble.  Hitherto  I  had  not  been  informed 
of  any  indications  to  the  cjiitrary. 

I  then  explained  to  him,  as  you  had  instructed  me  in  your  above- 
mentioned  dispatch  to  do,  that,  from  the  list  of  papers  sent  to  the  Senate 
by  the  President  on  the  U2d  ultimo,  the  paper  entitled  "Notes  on  3Ir. 
Fish's  dispatch  to  Mr.  Motley  of  L'.'ith  September,  1809,  resi)ecting  the 
Alabama,  &c,,  claims,"  had  been  omitted  because  you  had  been  forced 
to  the  conclusion  that  her  Majesty's  government  did  not  desire  the 
government  of  the  United  States  to  regard  those  "Notes"  asares[ionse 
to  the  views  set  forth  in  your  dispatch  to  me  of  the  "jr^f^h  *  September 
last,  Mr.  Thornton  not  having  indicated,  in  M'riting,  that  ilicy  wore  to 
bo  defiuitively  and  officially  so  regarded. 

His  lordship  said  that  he  had  been  much  surprised  at  the  omission 
of  the  paper,  because,  although  he  would  have  preferred  that  the  corre- 
spondence should  remain  unpublished  f(U'  the  present,  he  thought,  as 
the  publication  was  to  be  nnuh*,  that  the  "Notes"  should  have  been 
Included. 

I  observed  that,  as  his  lordship  had  stated  in  a  separate  dispatch  to 
Mr.  Thornton  the  determination  of  her  Majesty's  government  not  to  fol- 
low the  United  St.ates  Secretary  of  State  througli  the  long  recapitula- 
tion of  the  various  points  of  the  correspondence  between  the  two  gov- 
ernments during  several  years,  it  was  reasonable  that  you  shoubl  not 
think  yourself  justified  in  giving  an  official  character  to  the  paper  in 
question,  by  transmitting  it  to  the  Senate  as  part  of  the  correspond- 
ence. 

I  also  read  the  whole  of  your  dispatch  No.  Ill)  to  his  lordship,  calling 
his  attention  to  its  date,  22d  December,  two  days  accordingly  before 
publication  had  been  made  of  ])arts  of  the  same  correspondence  in  the 
London  Gazette  of  Friday,  24th  De(!ember  last. 

His  lordship  repeated  his  opinion  that  the  "Notes"  on uUt  to  have 
been  included  in  the  papers  transmitted  to  the  Senate,  adding  that  the 
documents  had  been  communicated  to  the  London  Gazette  only  when 
telegraphic  information  had  been  received  that  they  had  been  made 
public  in  the  United  States.  With  regard  to  your  suggestion  that  the 
"Notes"  were  not  dated  or  signed,  his  lordship  expressed  the  opinion 
that  they  should  bo  considered  as  bearing  the  same  date  as  that  of  the 
dispatch  to  which  they  were  appended. 

I  ventured  to  remind  his  loniship  that,  so  far  as  the  omission  might 
be  considered  as  prejudicial  to  a  due  exhibition  to  the  American  public 
of  the  latest  views  of  her  Majesty's  government  on  the  subject  which 
had  already  been  so  voluminously  and  elaborately  discussed  for  several 
years  between  the  two  governments,  the  detriment  would  perhaps  have 
been  already  repaired  by  the  reproduction  from  the  London  Gazette  in 
American  journals  of  the  "Notes"  and  of  such  other  parts  of  the  corre- 
spondence as  had  been  made  public  in  England  and  not  in  the  United 
States. 

His  lordship  proceeded  to  comment  upon  your  dispatch  No.  70,  saying 
that  it  was  diiiicult  to  look  for  hopeful  negotiations  when  so  strong  an  in- 


^".'V 


>  .^  ^^-  .^'t 


UNITED   STATES   AND   GREAT    IJRITAIN. 


iii<I  not 
('(M'luber, 

bi'ttJT  to 

lliiitea 

*  Si'iiute; 

nj)oii  it, 

e  Mcimte 

intnniieil 

ir  iilK)VO- 
ic  Ht'imte 
s  on  Mr. 
thif^  tli« 
Ml  forced 
esire  the 
resitouse 
aptemher 
wore  to 

omission 
:lu'  corre- 
jujjlit,  as 
ive  lu'en 

(piitcli  to 
lot  to  fol- 
t'iipitula- 
two  gov- 
lould  not 
paper  in 
iTeapond- 

p,  calling 
ly  before 
ce  in  the 

;  to  have 
that  the 
nly  when 
?eu  made 
that  the 
e  opinion 
at  of  the 

>n  miglit 
m  public 
jct  which 
>r  several 
laps  have 
razette  in 
;he  corre- 
e  United 

0,  saying 
ing  an  in- 


dictment again. <t  the  English  government  as  was  contained  in  that  pa|>e*- 
was  considered  by  the  Tnited  States  government  as  conciliatory.  I  said 
that  I  believed  that  the  statements  4'oiitaine<l  in  your  dispatch  com- 
manded the  cordial  approbation  and  assent  of  a  large  iiiajority  of  the 
American  jieople,  and  that  the  jiaper  was  looked  upon  in  the  United 
States  as  a  cnlm,  dispassioi  ate,  and  r«'asonable  setting  forth  of  the 
case — as  moderate  as  it  was  forcible. 

I  ventnred  to  remind  him  that  in  the  llrst  interview  which  I  had  the 
honor  to  have  with  him,  as  well  as  all  subsequent  interviews,  whenever 
these  unfortunate  dirtereiures  had  been  tomrhcd  upon,  1  lia«l  expressed 
the  opinion  that  ♦^'m'  first  step  toward  a  re-establishment  of  friendly  and 
honorabU^  relations  .1  tween  the  two  nations  was  i'or  her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment and  the  lirijsh  jteople  to  look  plainly  at  the  case  as  we  re- 
garded it,  and  to  become  familiar  with  tlie  <leep  sense  of  wrong  for 
which  we  const  ered  ■•'paration  to  bo  due.  The  painful  fact  remained, 
in  si>ire  of  ah  .iiscussion,  ♦hat,  throughout  the  whole  course  of  the  war, 
English-built,  arnuMl.  manned,  and  equipped  ships  had  been  systemati- 
•ally  employed  in  ^Ulhing  Auierieau  merchant  vessels ;  a  general  sense 
of  wrong  thus  excited  could  hardly  be  expected  to  subside  without  any 
atteiniit  at  reparation.  His  lordship  '"timaled  that  it  had  been  found 
impossible  to  prevent  (hete  evasions  of  the  law,  in  spite  of  the  eflForts 
of  g(»vernment ;  to  which  I  resixtmled  that  it  had  been  found  practica- 
ble to  prevent  similar  misdemeanors  in  the  United  States  on  many 
memorable  occasions,  and  I  took  occasion,  by  way  of  exanii»le,  to  dwell 
particularly  on  the  expeditious  manner  in  which  aflidavits  had  been 
tiled  by  telegraph  in  the  case  of  the  IMaury,  in  185,j,  and  the  ship  in- 
•stantly  libeled  by  the  United  States  government  and  held  until  declared 
innocent  to  the  lull  satisfaction  of  the  llritish  representative  in  the 
United  States.  Allusions  Avere  made,  in  the  course  of  the  conversation, 
to  projjosed  changes  in  the  law,  which  his  lordship  expressed  himself 
heartily  in  favor  of,  according  to  the  suggestions  in  your  dispatch.  Ho 
alluded  to  his  having  himself  i>roposed  such  changes  to  Mr.  Adams.  I 
took  the  liberty  of  repeating,  what  I  had  frequently  intimated  before, 
that  the  i)eople  in  the  United  States  would  hardly  think  it  reasonable  to 
provide  for  the  security  of  other  nations  in  the  possible  contingencies 
of  the  future,  against  the  very  injuries  to  which  we  had  been  obliged  to 
submit,  so  long  as  those  injuries  were  justified,  or  at  least  left  unre- 
dressed. On  several  occasions  in  our  history  we  had  altered  our  laws 
at  the  instance  of  other  governments,  England  among  the  rest,  in  order 
to  prevent  the  perpetration  of  wrong  upon  friendly  nations,  while  the 
British  government,  in  the  midst  of  the  war,  (our  commerce  then  suffer- 
ing from  the  depredations  of  cruisers  litted  out  in  British  ports,)  had 
informed  ~Sl\\  Adams  that  the  British  laws  then  in  force  required  no 
altt .  ation  and  were  sufticiently  efiective.  If  that  was  the  case  then, 
why  did  they  reciuire  alteration  now  ?  Disasters  were  to  be  feared  in 
the  future,  I  '^liought,  if  affairs  should  remain  in  their  present  condi- 
tion ;  for  it  was  doubtful,  if  the  cases  were  reversed  at  some  future 
period,  whether  the  British  government  and  people  would  quietly  sub- 
mit to  the  same  amount  of  damage  to  their  commercial  marine  by  ille- 
gally equipped  cruisers  from  our  ports,  as  that  which  we  had  suffered 
from  the  ships  which  were  fitted  out  from  the  Mersey  and  Clyde. 

The  rulings  in  the  Alexandra  would  make  commerce  the  prey  to  un- 
numbered Alabamas,  all  that  was  necessary  to  legalize  expeditions 
against  a  friendly  power  being  to  divide  them  into  two  or  three  parts, 
and  make  the  junction  three  miles  from  the  coast. 


6 


QUESTIONS   PENDING    BETWEEN   THE 


It  was  because  the  widespread  disasters  whicli  might  flow  from  such 
precedents  were  deprecated  that  we  hoped  that  some  means  might  be 
found,  now  that  peace  happily  prevailed,  to  arrange  honorably  and 
equitably  this  great  difference  between  the  two  nations. 

I  could  not  understand  how  a  temperate  and  dispassionate  statement, 
like  the  dispatch  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  could  be  considered  other- 
wise than  conciliatory.  Certainly,  if  all  the  proceedings  of  which  we 
complain  were  to  be  persistently  justified  by  the  British  government,  it 
was  difficult  to  see  how  these  differences  could  be  satisfactorily  arranged. 
If  such  proceedings  were  wrong,  they  required  reparation ;  if  they  were 
lawful,  they  might  form  an  unfortunate  precedent  for  the  future. 

Lord  Clarendon  said  that  he  would  certainly  be  very  averse  from 
saying  or  doing  anything  to  envenom  the  dispute,  repeating  what  he 
had  expressed  in  all  our  interviews — his  sincere  and  earnest  desire  for 
peace  and  amity. 

I  assured  him  that  the  President  and  the  United  States  government 
were  earnestly  desirous  of  i)eace  and  the  establishment  of  amicable  rela- 
tions between  the  two  governments,  upon  honorable,  equitable,  and  dur- 
able terms.  Certainly,  all  my  humble  efforts  would  be  to  that  end,  and 
nothing  left  undone  consistently  with  devotion  to  the  honor  and  interests 
of  my  own  country.  The  responsibility  was  great  on  those  to  whom  any 
part  of  the  relations  between  two  such  powerful  communities  were  con- 
fided, to  provide  now  in  time  of  peace  for  the  great  calamities  which  all 
men  sav/  were  possible,  ii  matters  remained  as  they  did  now  in  case  of 
future  wars. 

This,  as  accurately  as  I  can  remember  it,  is  the  substance  of  the  con- 
versation which  arose  out  of  my  making  the  explanations,  according  to 
the  instructions  in  your  dispatch  Jfo.  119,  and  which,  although  of  a 
somewhat  informal  nature,  I  think  should  be  reported  to  you  as  faith- 
fully as  my  memory  enables  me  to  do.  I  am  not  unmindful  of  the  de- 
sire of  the  President  that  the  negotiations  on  this  important  subject 
should  be  conducted,  whenever  reopened,  at  AVashington. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  LOTHROP  MOTLF.Y. 

Hon.  Hamilton  Fish, 

Secrctarxj  of  State,  Wmhington,  J).  C. 


No.  3. 
Lord  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Thornton. 

[Received  Febnuiiy  10, 1870,  at  Dopartment  of  State.] 

No.  22.]  Foreign  Office,  January  21, 1870. 

SiE :  I  have  to  instruct  you  to  slate  to  Mr.  Fish  that  her  Majesty's 
government  Lave  seen  with  some  surprise  that  the  14th  day  of  this 
month  and  successive  days  have  been  allowed  to  pass  over  withoiit 
any  communication  being  made  to  them,  on  the  part  of  thd  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  respecting  the  San  Juan  convention,  which, 
under  the  authority  of  his  government,  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson  signed 
with  me  on  the  14tli  of  January,  1869,  and  of  which  the  t^nth  article 


'jtm 


HMStj^M^^^mm 


om  such 
might  be 
ibly  and 

atenient, 
ed  other- 
vhich  we 
nment,  it 
irranged. 
hey  were 
e. 

rse  from 
what  he 
lesire  for 

'eruiuent 
able  rela- 
and  dur- 
eud,  and 
interests 
hoiu  any 
nere  con- 
which  all 
u  case  of 

the  cou- 
ording  to 
ugh  of  a 

as 


f  the  de- 
t  subject 


CLEY. 


,  1870. 

lajesty's 
of  this 
without 
govern - 
,  which, 
I  signed 
I  article 


UNITED    STATES   AND    GREAT   BRITAIN.  7 

provided  that  "  the  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged  at  London  as  soon 
as  nniy  be,  twelve  mouths  from  the  date  hereof." 

You  reported  in  your  dispatch  No.  159,  of  the  2Gth  of  April,  that  the 
Senate  had  decided  that  the  further  consideration  of  the  conveiition 
should  be  deferred  until  the  next  session  of  that  body,  which  would 
open  in  December ;  but,  as  far  as  her  Majesty's  government  are  in- 
formed, the  Senate,  since  its  reasseml)ling  iii  December,  has  not  taken 
the  convention  into  consideration. 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States  might  uu(iuestionably,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  its  constitutional  powers,  have  declined  to  advise  the  President 
to  ratify  the  San  Juan  convention,  in  the  same  manner  as  they  had 
declined  to  advise  him  to  ratify  the  claims  convention.  But  her  Maj- 
esty's government  cannot  but  observe  that  when  the  Senate  had  come 
to  that  decision  in  regard  to  the  latter  convention,  no  time  was  lost  in 
making  it  known  to  her  Majesty's  government.  But,  in  the  case  of  the 
San  Juan  convention,  no  explanation  whatever  has  been  made  to  them 
of  the  action  taken  upon  it  by  the  Senate,  or  of  the  reasons  why  the 
convention  has  been  allowed  to  lapse  without  observation  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States. 

You  will  read  this  dispatch  to  Mr.  Fish,  and,  if  he  should  desire  it, 
furnish  him  with  a  copy  of  it. 


I  am,  «&c.,  &c., 


CLARENDON. 


No.  4. 


2fr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Motley. 


No.  140.J 


Department  of  Stated, 

Washington,  Fehniary  14,  1870. 

Sir:  I  find  it  necessary  to  call  the  attention  of  yourself,  and,  through 
you,  that  of  the  Earl  of  Clarendoii,  to  some  incidents  nnd  suggestions 
of  late  dispatches,  in  order  to  the  clear  understanding  of  the  present 
attitude  of  some  of  the  questions  now  pending  between  the  two  govern- 
ments. 

■  Mr.  Thornton  called  at  the  department  on  the  19th  of  November  last, 
and  read  to  me,  and  left  with  me,  a  copy  of  a  dispatch  addressed  to  him 
by  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  the  (Jth  of  November  last,  dedicated  to  the 
consideration  of  my  dispatch  of  the  2r»th  of  Sej>tember  last,  in  which 
the  Earl  of  Clarendon  says: 

And  it  is  beciuiac  they  earnestly  tlesire  to  hasten  the  period  at  whieh  the."  iniportimt 
objects  may  be  accomplished  that  her  Majesty's  governmetft  have  determined  not  to 
follow  Mr.  Fish  throuj^h  the  lonjj;  re(!apituiation  of  the  variona  points  that  have  been 
discussed  in  the  voluminous  correspoudenco  that  has  taken  place  between  the  two 
governments  for  several  years. 

The  language  of  this  paragraph  is  dear  and  explitiit.  For  important 
and  sufticient  reasons,  stated  v/ith  precision  by  the  Earl  of  Clarendon, 
her  Majesty's  government  declined  to  take  up  and  discuss  the  points  of 
my  dispatch  of  the  25th  of  September. 

The  Earl  of  Clarendon  does  not  ]>resent,  as  one  of  the  reasons  for 
this  determination,  that  my  dispatch  was  not  an  official  paper,  discussing 
officially  nmtters  of  moment  to  both  governments.    To  tlje  contrary  of 


d 


(QUESTIONS   PENDING    BETWEEN   THE 


this,  throughout  this  dispatch,  he  treats  mine  as  official,  recapituhiteH 
and  responds  to  material  parts  of  it,  and  propounds  responsive  proposi- 
tions on  the  part  of  her  ]\Iajesty's  government.  At  the  same  time,  Mr. 
Thornton  left  with  me  an  unsigned  paper,  entitled  "Notes,"  consisting 
of  an  argumentative  commentary  on  the  contents  of  my  dispatch  of  the 
25th  of  September.  I  was  at  a  loss  to  comprehend  the  purpose  of  her 
Majesty's  government ;  that  is,  to  perceive  whether  it  did  or  did  not 
intend  to  be  understood  as  "determined  not  to  follow"  me  in  discussion 
of  the  points  of  controversy  between  the  two  governments.  The  Earl 
of  Clarendon's  disiiatch  expressed  absolute  determination  not  to  do 
this;  and,  nevertheless,  it  seemed  to  be  done  iv  fact  in  and  by  these 
"Notes." 

In  the  presence  of  such  uniicrtainty  in  this  respect,  it  was  considered 
more  just  to  adopt  the  course  of  comity  and  of  favorable  construction, 
and  before  adopting  any  positive  conclusion  to  wait  for  reflection  and 
for  such  possible  solutions  of  doubt  in  the  process  of  time  as  circuija- 
stances  might  attord.  There  was  nothing  in  the  state  of  controversy  to 
forbid  such  course  or  to  piejudice  by  it  any  interest  of  the  United 
States. 

■  Meanwhile  the  pre-existing  uncertainty  in  this  respect  was  augmented 
by  the  publication  in  the  Loiulon  Gazette,  of  the  24th  of  December  last, 
of  "Correspondence  with  the  United  States  minister  at  Washington," 
in  which  iippears  a  second  dispatch  froni  the  Earl  of  Clarendon,  of  No- 
vember 6, 1869,  which  first  came  under  my  observation  as  thus  published 
by  the  Foreign  Office  in  the  London  Gazette.  In  this  dispatch  I  find  to 
my  surprise  that  the  Earl  of  Clarencfon  professed  to  look  upon  my  dis- 
patch of  the  25th  of  September  as  "  not  being  of  a  strictly  official 
character,"  and  as  being  communicated  to  him  personally  rather  than 
as  the  representative  of  the  Queen's  government,  and  that  therefore  he 
did  not  think  it  necessary  in  his  "official  reply  to  the  communication 
made  by  Mr.  Motley"  to  express  dissent  from  the  statements  made  in 
my  dispatch. 

In  the  formal  determination  expressed  by  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  in 
his  first  dispatch  to  Mr.  Thornton,  of  November  0,  not  to  pursue  the 
discussion,  and  in  the  delivery  of  the  paper  entitled  "Notes,"  there 
seemed  to  be  contradiction  between  words  and  acts;  but  as  the  "Notes'' 
were  without  date  and  unsigned,  as  they  were  unofficial  in  tenor  and 
form,  and  as,  therefore,  they  did  not  afford  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States  opportunity  to  treat  them  as  an  official  reply  of  the 
Queen's  government  to  that  of  the  United  States,  it  was  necessary  for 
the  latter  either  to  leave  them  unanswered,  or,  in  answering  them,  to 
call  in  question  the  frankness  of  the  Earl  of  Clarendon. 

The  tenor  of  the  Ean  of  Clarendon's  second  dispatch  of  the  Gth  of 
November,  and  the  appearance  of  the  "Notes"  in  the  "Correspondence'' 
published  by  the  Foreign  Office,  but,  when  thus  made  ijublic,  elevated 
into  the  dignity  of  "  Observations,"  serve  to  increase  the  uncertainty  of 
construction  in  this  respect  which  the  delivery  of  the  "  Notes"  in  con- 
nection with  the  Earl  of  Clarendon's  first  dispatch  of  the  (Jth  of  Novem- 
ber produced. 

The  reference  of  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  in  the  second  dispatch  of  the 
6th  of  November  to  a  passage  in  my  dispatch  of  the  2oth  of  September 
adds  still  more  to  this  uncertainty.  I  addressed  that  dispatch  to  you 
with  authority  to  read  it  and  del'ver  a  copy  of  it  to  the  Earl  of  Claren- 
don in  accordance  with  diplomatic  usage. 

This  you  did  at  the  Foreign  Office  on  the  15th  of  Of>tcber,  as  appears 
by  Lord  Clarendon's  dispatch  of  6th  November,  which  Mr.  Thofnto;i 


( 


i 


UNITED    STATES   AND    GREAT    KRITAIN. 


d 


apituliites 
e  proposi- 
tinie,  Mr. 
consisting 
tch  of  the 
3S0  of  her 
r  (lid  not 
discussion 

The  Earl 
lot  to  do 

by  these 

onsidercd 
structiou, 
ction  and 
IS  circuip- 
oversy  to 
10  United 

ugmented 
mber  last, 
jhington," 
)n,  of  No- 
pn  Wished 
I  find  to 
)n  my  dis- 
ly  official 
ither  than 
erefore  he 
inuication 
8  made  in 

reudon  in 
ursue  the 
es,"  there 
)  "Notes'' 
tenor  and 
lit  of  the 
•ly  of  the 
essary  for 
■  them,  to 

he  Gth  of 
ondence" 
,  elevated 
rtainty  of 
i"  in  con- 
f  Novem- 

nh  of  the 
eptember 
ih  to  you 
f  C'laren- 


1  appears 
riiornto;) 


read  to  me.  Lord  Clarendon  then  treated  it  as  an  official  paper,  remark- 
ing; that  he  would  not  then  enter  into  any  discussion  on  the  subject,  yet 
he  hoped  that  his  silence  would  not  be  considered  to  indicate  that  the 
•'  dispatch"  (not  a  privatie  communication)  did  not  admit  of  a  complete 
reply.  He  recpiested  a  copy  of  it,  "  as  he  would  not  undertake  from 
memory  accurately  to  report  to  his  colleagues  the  contents."  He  fur- 
ther says  that  "  Mr.  Motley  agreed  to  do  so  if  I  (he)  would  ask  him  for 
it  offieially,''''  and  he  accordingly  addressed  to  him  (Mr.  Motley)  the  same 
afternoon  a  letter  dated  at  tlie  Foreign  Office,  requesting  a  copy  of  "the 
long  and  important  dispatch"  "  for  the  i)urpose  of  reporting  to  his  col- 
leagues," as  if  it  was  at  that  tinu^  regarded  as  of  an  official  character, 
and  as  communicated  to  the  Va\v\  of  (Marendon  as  the  representative  of 
the  (Queen's  government. 

Wlien  Mr.  Thornton  called  at  this  department  on  the  19th  of  Novem- 
ber, I  Avas  on  the  i>oiiit  of  departure  to  atteiul  a  meeting  of  the  cabinet. 
His  visit  was  not  expected.  I  mentioned  to  him  the  necessity  of  my 
immediate  departure,  but  at  his  request  delayed  to  hear  the  dispatch  of 
0th  of  November,  which  he  was  instructed  to  read  to  me,  and  to  leave 
a  copy  of  it  if  recjuested.  He  then  produced  a  longer  paper,  which  he 
stated  he  was  also  instructed  to  read.  I  objected  on  account  of  the  i 
shortness  of  time,  as  I  could  then  barely  reach  the  President  before  the 
hour  appointed  for  the  cabinet  meeting.  He  then  proposed  to  leave 
the  ])aper  with  me,  if  I  would  consider  it  as  having  been  read,  to  which 
I  assented,  reserving  the  right  to  return  to  him  the  copy  if  on  perusal 
I  should  tind  in  it  anything  (which  I  remarked  I  did  not  think  at  all 
probable)  that  would  be  improper  or  objectionable  to  place  among  the 
papers  of  this  oHuie.  AVith  this  understanding  I  received  the  psiper  (at 
that  time)  entitled  "  Notes,"  without  its  being  read.  It  Avas  the  evening 
of  that  day  (after  tlie  cabinet  meeting)  before  I  read  or  knew  the  con- 
tents of  that  i)a])er.  I  had  nothing  to  excite  my  suspicion  that  Lord 
Clarendon  claimed  to  have  received  my  dispatch  No.  70  as  a  communi- 
cation to  him  personally  rather  than  as  the  representative  of  the  Queen's 
government.  Any  intimation  of  that  nature  would  necessarily  have  in- 
duced a  \ery  diiferent  course  of  action  on  my  part.  Lord  Clarendon's 
own  acts  had  negatived  any  such  hypothesis.  I  Avas  indeed  at  a  loss  to 
account  for  the  ai)parent  discrepancy  between  the  views  of  her  IVLajesty's 
government,  as  officially  communicate<l  to  me,  and  the  views  of  the  un- 
known writer  of  the  anonymous  "  Notes."  When  the  correspondence  was 
called  for  by  the  Senate,  being  ignorant  of  the  character  to  be  assigned 
to  the  "Notes,"  I  did  not  transmit  them  to  that  body,  and  instructed  you 
in  my  No.  Ill)  to  explain  to  Lord  Clarendon  the  reason  why  I  had  not 
done  so. 

This  uncertainty  continued  until  the  receipt  of  the  London  Gazette 
of  24th  December,  when  I  first  saw  the  letter  that  Lord  Clarendon  had, 
on  the  0th  November,  written  to  ]Mr.  Thornton,  in  which  he  disclaimed 
the  official  character  in  which  he  had  appeared  in  the  former  note  of  the 
same  date,  which  had  been  read  to  me  by  Mr.  Thornton  and  of  which 
he  wa.  authorized  to,  and  did,  give  me  a  copy.  This  ])ublication  first 
gave  to  the  "Notes"  (or  "Observations")  an  official  significance. 

In  view  of  all  this,  the  President  has  instructed  me  to  address  to  you 
this  dispatch.  He  desires  to  beexjdieitly  informed  whether  the  "Notes" 
or  "Observations"  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  official  act  of  the  Queen's 
government  in  response  to  my  disjiatch  of  the  25tli  of  September,  in 
which  his  views  are  officially  stated  for  the  information,  not  of  the  Earl 
of  Clarendon  personally,  but  of  the  Queen's  government.  He  desires 
neitlier  to  utter  nor  to  reply  to  ambiguous  views.    If  the  "Notes"  or 


iVi 


1 


10 


QUESTIONS   PENDING    BETWEEN   THE 


"  Observatious"  are  ofiQcial,  lie  deems  it  pro[»er  that  the  goverumeut  of 
the  United  States  shall  treat  them  as  such,  and  so,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  they  are  unofficial.  To  this  end,  you  will  address  a  communication  to 
the  Earl  of  Clarendon  in  your  own  name,  embodying  in  substance  the 
contents  of  this  dispatch,  and,  appealing  to  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  in 
respectful  and  courteous,  but  in  explicit  and  plain  language,  to  say 
whether  the  "  Notes"  are  or  are  not  to  be  considered  and  treated  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  as  an  official  exposition  of  the  views  of 
her  Majesty's  government. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 
John  Lothrop  Motley,  Esq.,  d-c,  d'c,  tfcc. 


i 


successive  days,  had  been  al- 
ien being  made  to  her  Ma- 
ameut  of  the  United  States 


No.  5. 

Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Motley. 

.  No.  151.J  Department  of  State, 

Washington.^  February  15, 1870. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  aclcnowledge  the  reception  of  your  dispatch  No.  210, 
dated  January  13.  Mr.  Thornton  called  upon  me  ou  the  10th  instant, 
and  read  to  me  a  dispatch  dated  January  21, 1870,  addressed  to  him  by 
Lord  Clarendon,  of  which  a  copy  is  inclcr'^d  herewith,  expressing  sur- 
I)rise  that  the  l4th  day  of  that  month,  ai''^ 
lowed  to  pass  over  without  any  communv^ 
jesty's  government  on  the  part  of  the  govt 
respecting  the  San  Juan  convention. 

Ill  your  dispatch,  acknowledged  above,  you  mention  a  conversation 
which  you  had  on  the  12th  January  with  Lord  Clarendon  at  the  Foreign 
Office,  in  which  you  state  that,  in  answer  to  a  question  concerning  the 
proposed  bill  on  the  subject  of  naturalization,  you  understood  his  lord- 
ship to  say  that  it  was  nearly  ready  and  would  be  jilaced  before  Parlia- 
ment at  an  earlj-  day  in  the  coming  session ;  that,  upon  your  expression 
of  satisfaction  at  this  prospect,  saying  that  the  United  States  gover.i- 
ment  was  anxious  to  see  this  arrangement  coir^.  ,ed,  his  lordship  an- 
swered by  expressing  his  regret  "  that  there  did  not  seem  to  be  the  same 
anxiety  at  Washington  to  complete  the  arrangement  which  had  been 
made  in  regard  to  the  water  boundary,  appearances  seeming  to  indi- 
cate that  the  convention  for  leaving  that  dispute  to  arbitration  would 
not  be  ratified  or  even  acted  upon  by  the  Senate,  a  result  which  he  con- 
sidered would  be  discourteous  to  her  Majesty's  government."  You  re- 
plied correctly  and  accurately  that  the  twelve  months  for  ratification 
had  not  yet  expired. 

Treaties  are  considered  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  in  secret 
session,  with  closed  doors  and  under  the  injunction  of  secrecy.  His 
lordship  could  not  have  known  what  action  the  Senate  in  its  secret  ses- 
sions might  or  might  not  liave  taken  upon  the  convention,  nor  could  he 
have  known  but  that  on  the  day  following  his  remark,  you  might  have 
presented  the  ratified  treaty  for  exchange. 

The  haste  to  anticipate  events  and  to  characterize  the  expected  course 
of  this  government  as  discourteous  to  her  Majesty's  government  excites 
much  regret.  The  President  persuades  himself,  however,  that  it  was 
not  intended  as  a  discourtesy  toward  this  government,  and  therefore 
does  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  non-action  of  this  government  upon 


UNITED   STATES   AND    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


11 


rumeat  of 
her  hand, 
lication  to 
atauce  the 
rendou 


m 


je,  to  say 
ted  by  the 
e  viewa  of 


FISH. 


o,  1870. 

I  No.  210, 
h  instant, 
to  hiiB  by 
issiug  sur- 
id  been  al- 
)  her  Ma- 
ted States 

tiversation 
le  Foreign 
'rning  the 
I  his  lord- 
)re  Parlia- 
2xpression 
is  gover,:- 
rdshij)  an- 
e  the  same 
had  been 
?  to  indi- 
iou  would 
3h  he  con- 
You  re- 
itificatiou 

in  secret 
ecy.  His 
lecret  ses- 
i'  could  he 
ight  have 

cd  course 
Qt  excites 
at  it  was 
therefore 
lent  upon 


the  San  Juan  convention  has  not,  in  any  degree,  proceeded  from  a  want 
of  desire  or  of  intention  to  observe  the  strictest  courtesy  toward  the 
government  of  her  Majesty. 

In  the  dispatch  of  Lord  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Thornton,  of  which  a  copy 
accompanies  this,  his  lordship  expresses  the  s  irprise  of  her  Majesty's 
government  that  no  coumiunication  had  been  n:.^tle  to  them  on  the  part 
of  this  government  respecting  the  San  Juan  convention. 

It  should  be  no  cause  of  surprise  to  her  Majesty's  government  that 
the  United  States  withhold  their  assent  from  that  convention  until  the 
question  of  naturalization  sliall  have  been  satisfactorily  settled  by  treaty 
or  by  law  of  Parliament,  cr  by  both. 

You  are  aware  that  when  Mr.  lleverdy  Johnson  left  this  country  on 
his  mission,  which  resulted  in  the  negotiation  of  what  is  termed  "  the  natu- 
ralization protocol,"  the  "  San  Juan"  and  the  "claims"  conventions,  he  was 
instructed  that "  the  so-called  naturalization  (piestion  is  the  one  which 
first  and  most  urgently  requires  attention."  His  instructions  further  say, 
"You  will  frankly  state  to  Lord  Stanley,  that  until  this  difficulty  shall 
be  removed,  it  is  believed  by  the  President  that  any  attempt  to  settle 
any  of  the  existing  controversies  between  the  two  countries  would  be 
unavailing,  and  therefore  inexpedient."  And  further,  "in  case  her 
Majesty's  government  shall  adopt  the  required  measures  to  adjust  the 
naturalization  question,  you  will  next  be  expected  to  give  your  atten- 
tion to  the  adjustment  of  the  northwest  boundary  controversy,  which 
involves  the  right  of  national  dominion  and  property  over  the  island  of 
San  Juan,  on  the  frontier  line  between  the  United  States  and  British 
Columbia.  It  is  understood  that  on  the  breaking  out  of  the  recent  civil 
war  in  the  United  States,  this  boundary  question  was  on  the  eve  of  be- 
ing arranged,  by  referring  it  to  an  impartial  and  friendly  arbiter.  The 
question  is  increasing  in  urgency  with  the  growing  settlement  and  poi>- 
ulation  of  the  Northwest,  and  with  the  multiplication  of  causes  of  liti- 
gation within  the  disputed  territory.  The  United  States  still  remain  in 
a  disposition  favorable  to  the  process  of  adjustment  originally  contem- 
plated." This  was  communicated  by  Mr.  Johnson  to  Lord  Stanley,  as  was 
also  the  following  extract  li'om  his  instructions : 

"Our  conclusion  is  that,  in  the  event  that  you  become  convinced  that 
an  arrangement  of  the  naturalization  question  which  would  be  satisfac- 
tory to  the  United  States,  in  view  of  your  previous  instructions,  can  be 
made,  then,  and  in  that  case,  you  may  open  concuri'ent  negotiations  upon 
the  two  questions  first  herein  named,  to  wit,  San  Juan  and  the  claims 
questions;  but  that  those  two  negotiations  shall  not  be  completed,  or 
your  proceedings  therein  be  deemed  obligatory,  until  after  the  naturali- 
zation question  shall  have  been  satisfactorily  settled  by  treaty  or  b>- 
law^  of  Parliament."  In  consequence  of  this  latter  clause  of  Mr.  Johnson's 
instruction,  a  provision  was  inserted  in  the  protocol,  signed  by  Mv.  John- 
«'on  and  Lord  Stanley  on  the  17th  October,  18G8,  embodying  the  agree- 
ment to  refer  to  some  friendly  state  or  power  the  settlement  of  the 
northwest  boundary  line  (the  San  Juan  protocol)  in  these  Avords :  "  It  is 
understood  that  this  agreement  shall  not  go  into  operation  or  have  any 
effect  until  the  question  of  naturalization  now  pending  between  the  two 
governments  shall  have  been  satisfactorily  settled  by  treaty,  or  by  law 
of  Parliament,  or  by  both,  unless  the  two  parties  shall  in  the  mean  time 
otherwise  agree." 

This  government  has  at  no  time  otherwise  agreed.  Her  Majesty's 
government  has,  therefore,  from  the  iirst  been  fully  advised  that  this 
government  regarded  the  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  naturalization 
question  as  a  preliminary  to  the  settlement  of  the  San  Juan  controversy, 


13 


QUESTIONS   PENDING    BETWEEN    THE 


/I 


m 


U'iJ;, 


and  that  the  negotiations  with  respect  to  the  Isitter  should  not  be  com- 
pleted until  after  the  naturalization  question  shall  have  been  satisfac- 
torily settled  by  treaty  or  by  law  of  Parliament. 

On  the  10th  of  November,  18G8,  a  further  protocol  was  signed  by  Mr. 
Reverdj'  Johnson  and  Lord  Stanley,  agreeing  to  refer  the  disputed 
•piestion  of  boundary  to  the  decision  of  the  president  of  the  federal 
council  of  the  Swiss  Confederation. 

On  the  2Gth  of  December,  1868,  Lord  Clarendon  instructed  Mr.  Thorn- 
ton to  recall  to  Mr.  Seward's  recollection  a  (iontingent  authority  he  had 
previously  given  to  Mr.  Johnson,  to  convert  the  San  Juan  i)rotocol  nto 
11  convention,  and  suggested  that  he  be  again  specifically  authorized  by 
telegraph  to  do  so.  The  protocol  was  accordingly  converted  into  a  con- 
vention, and  signed  on  the  14th  January,  1869,  and  Mas  immediately 
submitted  to  the  Senate  for  its  constitutional  action  thereon. 

The  convention  does  not  repeat  the  fifth  article  of  the  protocol  of  the 
17th  October,  which  made  the  agreement  to  refer  the  settlement  of  the 
disputed  boundary  to  arbitration  depend  for  its  oi>eration  and  effective- 
ness upon  the  previous  satisfactory  settlement  by  treaty  or  by  law  of 
Parliament,  or  by  both,  of  the  more  important  question  of  naturalization. 
It  was  not  necessary  that  it  should  be  repeated.  It  was,  in  its  nature, 
but  temporary,  and  therefore  no  proper  article  of  a  permanent  convention, 
on  the  face  of  which  it  might  for  all  time  be  a  blemish,  to  raise  a  ques- 
tion and  to  throw  a  doubt  upon  the  validity  of  the  treaty  as  dependent 
upon  the  i^riority  of  ratification  between  it  and  another  convention. 
But  it  was  a  solemn  agreement  between  the  two  governments,  not  to  be 
waived  by  imi)lication  or  by  inference — to  be  avoided  only  by  agree- 
ment of  both  parties.  Neither  party  has  proposed  to  avoul  or  to  abro- 
gate it. 

In  forwarding  the  San  Jusrn  convention  to  his  government,  Mr. 
Reverdy  Johnson  wrote  on  the  1.5th  of  January,  1869,  (the  dfiy  after  it 
was  signed,)  that  "  it  differs  only  from  the  protocol  in  the  same  subject, 
in  the  insertion  of  such  provisions  as  became  necessary  by  their  con- 
version into  a  convention."  To  attempt  to  argue  the  continued  validity 
of  that  part  of  the  agreement  might  be  constnxed  into  a  mistrust  of  the 
fair  dealing  of  one  or  other  of  the  parties  to  the  agreement. 

It  is  true  that  in  consenting  that  the  San  Juan  protocol  should  be 
matured  into  a  convention  in  January,  1869,  the  United  States  did  suffer 
that  subject  to  take  a  step  in  advance,  in  matter  of  form,  of  the  natural- 
ization question.  But  in  so  doing,  this  government  did  not  intend  to 
relinquish,  was  not  understood  to  relinquish,  and  did  not,  in  fact,  relin- 
quish its  position  on  the  naturalization  question.  The  British  government 
had  agreed  in  the  naturalization  protocol  of  9th  October,  1860,  to  intro- 
duce measures  into  Parliament  to  carry  its  principles  into  operation, 
us  speedily  as  might  be  possible,  having  regard  to  the  variety  of  public 
and  private  interests  which  might  be  affected  by  a  change  in  the  laws 
of  naturalization,  &c. ;  and  the  government  of  the  United  States,  ini^er- 
mitting  the  San  Juan  question  to  take  temporary  or  apparent  pre- 
cedence in  point  of  form,  still  trusted  in  the  good  faith  of  the  Queen's 
government  to  carry  out  that  agreement  to  the  letter  and  spirit.  This 
could  have  been  settled  at  any  moment  by  act  of  Parliament.  It  was 
a  matter  wholly  within  the  power  of  the  Queen's  government  to  arrange 
at  any  moment,  at  its  own  convenience,  and  in  its  own  way,  free  from 
the  complications  of  international  conventions  or  diplomatic  negotia- 
tion. This  it  has  not  done.  Parliament  convened  on  the  16th  Feb- 
ruary, 1869,  more  than  four  months  after  the  agreement  on  the  natural- 
ization protocol,  and  continued  its  session  until  August  11,  of  the  same 


-Tnfrr  «i-  is  ii'V'Vjii  '"i  WLLi'linLnMl 


ff 


UNITED    STATES    AND    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


1§ 


be  com-         1      year — Ji  session  of  nearly  six  niontbs — without  the  introduction  of  nieas- 
mtisfac-        |      ures  to  carry  the  iirinciples  of  the  protocol  into  operation. 

j         In  pursuance  of  your  instructions,  you,  on  the  lOth  diiy  of  June  last, 

bj-^Mr.        I      informed  Lord  Clarendon  that  you  were  "  ready  to  enter  into  arrange- 

isputed        i      ments  for  converting  the  protocol  signed  on  the  Oth  October,  18G8,  in 

federal        1      regard  to  naturalization  into  a  treaty ."    In  reply,  he  expressed  a  doubt 

whether  there  would  be  time  during  what  was  left  of  the  session,  to 

carry  the  necessary  preliminary  measures  through  Parliament. 

On  the  2Cth  of  June,  under  further  instructions,  you  again  called  his 
lordship's  attention  to  this  subject,  and  you  expressed  "  the  earnest 
wish  of  your  government  that  the  needful  legislation  might  be  had  and 
the  protocol  converted  into  a  treaty  without  further  unnecessary  delay." 
His  lordship  replied,  on  the  Oth  of  July,  that  "  it  would  be  ai)solutely 
impossible  to  carry  through  Parliament  so  large  and  complex  a  measure 
as  the  naturalization  bill  before  the  time  arrives  for  the  prorogation." 
On  the  10th  of  August,  I  instructed  you  to  say  that  I  had  not  felt  wil- 
ling to  i)ress  Lord  Clarendon  while  a  domestic  question  of  sucli  great 
importance  to  Great  Britian,  and  so  interesting  to  a  large  class  of  peo- 
ple in  this  country,  as  the  Irish  church  bill  was  pending ;  that  I  aitciui- 
esced  in  his  decision  that  it  was  impossible  to  carry  a  naturalization 
bill  through  at  the  close  of  a  session;  that  Mr.  Seward  had  frankly  in- 
formed the  British  government  that,  until  the  naturalization  question 
should  be  settled,  any  attempts  to  settle  the  other  existing  controversies 
Avould  be  unavailing ;  and  that  the  present  administration  concurred  in 
that  opinion,  and  hoped  that  there  would  be  no  delay  on  the  part  of 
Lotd  Clarendon  in  the  preparation  of  a  bill  for  the  action  of  Parliament 
at  its  next  session.  These  representations  were  made  by  you  on  the  lOth 
of  September,  and  were  acknowledged  by  Lord  Clarendon  on  the  22d 
of  that  month. 

Congress  assembled  as  usual  on  the  first  Monday  of  December,  and 
proceeded  with  its  ordinary  business.  The  14th  of  January  arrived 
without  any  further  communioation  from  Lord  Clarendon  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  proposed  naturalization  convention,  and  without  a  request 
from  her  Majesty's  government  for  an  extension  of  the  time  for  the 
exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  the  water  boundary  convention. 

In  these  circumstances,  while  if  there  be  any  cause  for  the  suggestion 
of  discourtesy  (as  implied  by  delay)  on  either  side,  the  United  States 
government  would  seem  to  have  the  better  reason  to  make  such  sug- 
gestion, yet  we  do  not  either  admit  or  charge  discourtesy.  We  stand 
on  higher  ground.  We  know  well  that  her  Majesty's  governn.  twill 
claim  no  advantage  of  the  confidence  which  the  United  States  reposed 
in  it,  when  converting  the  San  Juan  protocol  into  a  convention,  in  an- 
ticipation of  a  prompt  and  prior  settlement  of  the  naturalization  ques- 
tion in  accordance  with  the  solemn  agreement  between  the  two  govern- 
ments. In  both  nations  we  must  accept  the  inconveniences  of  consti- 
tutional institutions  with  their  greater  benefits,  and  neither  has  good 
cause  of  complaint  against  the  other,  if  the  acts  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  on  the  one  hand,  or  those  of  the  Parliament  of  Great 
Britain,  on  the  other,  do  not  keep  pace  with,  or  correspond  to,  all  the 
views  of  the  executive  government. 

You  will  read  this  dispatch  to  Lord  Clarendon,  and  leave  a  copy  with 
him. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 

J.  LoTllROP  MoTLKV,  Esq., 

ih:,  ibc,  &c.,  London. 


■-^^x 


u 


m^ 


\ii 


'-'! 

i  ^    1 

>      ] 

%<r     ' 

V 

i 

\: 

QUESTIONS   PENDING   BETWEEN  THE 

No.  6. 

Mr.  Alotley  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Received  March  26, 1870.] 


No.  274. 


Legation  op  the  United  States, 

London,  March  10,  1870. 

Sir  :  I  hart  an  interview,  by  appointment,  with  Lord  Clarendon  yes- 
terday, 9th  instant,  on  which  occasion  1  read  to  him,  according  to  yonr 
instructions,  your  dispatch  No.  151,  of  the  15th  February.  No  com- 
ments were  made  during  the  reading,  and  on  its  conclusion  Lord  Clar 
endon  expressed  satisfaction  with  the  tenor  and  cont"nts  of  the  dispatch, 
so  far  as  he  could  jurtge  after  hearing  it  read  once.  I  left  with  his  lord- 
ship, as  you  directed  me  to  do,  a  copy  of  the  paper,  and  the  conversation 
which  ensued  was  so  informal  that  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  report 
it.  His  manner  was  very  friendly,  and  he  alluded  with  much  satisfac- 
tion to  the  prospect  that  the  naturalization  bill,  now  in  committee  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  would  become  law  at  a  very  early  day.  The  gov- 
ernment, he  said,  would  make  every  effort  to  prevent  delay  in  either 
House  of  Parliament. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  LOTHKOP  MOTLEY. 

Hon.  Hamilton  Fish, 

Secretary  of  State,  Waahington,  D.  C. 


No.  7. 
Mr.  Motley  to  Mr.  Finh. 

[Received  March  29,  1870.] 


No.  278.] 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  March  17,  1870. 

Sib  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herein  the  copy  of  a  note  addressed 
by  me  to  her  Majesty's  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs  on 
the  12th  instant,  in  pursuance  of  the  instructions  in  your  dispatch  No. 
149,  of  the  14th  February. 

Keferring  to  that  dispatch,  I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  a  slight 
addition  which  I  have  thought  it  necessary  to  make  to  its  substance, 
as  embodied  in  my  note.  If  you  will  have  the  goodness  to  refer  to  a 
dispatch  of  Lord  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Thornton,  No.  9,  January  12, 1870, 
as  printed  in  "North  America,  No,  1,  (1870,)  correspondence  respect- 
ing the  Alabama  claims,  1869-'70,  presented  to  both  Houses  of  Parlia- 
ment," a  copy  of  which  accompanied  my  No.  246,  of  date  the  17th  of 
February,  you  will  find  that  his  lordship  had  not  remembered  with 
entire  accuracy  the  substance  of  your  dispatch  No.  119,  of  the  22d  of 
December,  of  which  no  copy  was  left  with  him.  The  opening  iiaragi'aph 
of  his  lordship's  dispatch  is  as  follows : 

Mr.  Motley  has  this  day  read  to  me  a  dispatch  dated  the  22d  ultimo,  from  Mr.  Fish, 
stating  that,  among  tlio  papers  respecting  the  Alabama  claims  that  had  been  presentecl 
to  the  Senate,  he  had  not  included  my  dispatch  of  the  6th  of  November,  and  the  mem- 
orandum it  inclosed,  which  he  did  not  consider  to  be  official,  as  the  memorandum  wan 
not  signed  or  dated,  and  as  in  my  other  dispatches,  &c. 


T 


UNITED   8TATE.S    AND    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


n 


1870. 

idon  yes- 
( to  your 

'^o  com- 
ord  Clar- 
disp.atcli, 

bis  lord- 
v^ersatiou 
to  report 

satisfac- 
mittee  of 
The  gov- 
iu  either 


TLEY. 


7,  1870. 

iddressed 
affairs  ou 
)atch  No. 

0  a  slight 
iibstance, 
refer  to  a 
12, 1870, 

respect- 
f  Parlia 
e  17th  of 
red  with 
e  22d  of 
aragi'aph 

1  Mr.  Fisli, 
I  presentetl 

the  metu- 
nclura  was 


N^ow,  J  our  dispatch,  read  by  me  to  his  lordship  on  tlu*  12th  of  January, 
distinctly  states  that  Lord  Clarendon's  dispatch  of  0th  November 
was  included,  and  that  the ''Notes"  were  excluded  because  there  was 
no  written  paper  left  with  them  indicatiu};  that  they  were  otticinl. 
There  is,  of  course,  no  allusion  to  his  lordship's  "other  dispatch,"  be- 
cause that  other  dispatch  (No.  7,  in  the  printed  correspondence  above 
cited)  had  not  been  seen  by  you  until  it  reached  you  in  i)rint  some  two 
weeks  later. 

In  order  to  prevent  any  further  misapprehension,  I  have  incorporated 
the  substance  of  your  said  dispatch,  Xo.  11!),  of  22(1  December,  in  my 
uote  of  the  12th  instant,  a  course  which  I  trust  will  meet  your  ajjproba- 
tion. 

I  an),  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  LOTHIJOP  MOTLEY. 

Hon.  Hamilton  Fish, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  J).  C. 


[ludosure.] 


Mr.  Mothy  to  Lord  Clarendon. 

Legation  of  tiik  IJnitkd  Statks, 

London,  March  12,  1«7(). 

My  Loi!i>:  It  is  cimHidercd  desirablo  by  my  government  that  your  lordship'ti  atten- 
tion sliouUl  be  culled  to  certain  incidents  connected  with  the  recent  corrcspondcnc* 
between  the  government  of  her  Majesty  and  that  of  the  United  States. 

Yo\ir  lordsiiip  remembers  that  on  the  15th  of  October  last  I  had  the  honor  of  an  in- 
terview with  you  at  the  Foreign  Office,  on  which  occasion  I  read  to  yon  a  long  otticial 
dispatch  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 

This  dispatch,  which  treated  of  international  affairs  of  moment,  had  been  "lUdressed 
to  myself,  as  minister  of  thj  United  States  at  her  Majesty's  court,  with  authcrity  to  read 
it  to  your  lordship.  After  hearing  it  read,  your  lordship  observed  that  it  would  be 
hardly  proper  for  you  to  report  from  memory  to  your  coUeagnes  the  contents  of  so  long 
and  important  a  dispatch,  (not  a  private  communication,)  and  you  accordingly  asked 
if  I  were  authorized  to  furnish  a  copy  of  it.  I  replied  that  I  would  do  so  if  you  would 
ask  me  for  it  officially.  Your  lordship  accordingly  did  me  the  honor  of  addressing  me 
a  written  request  from  the  Foreign  Office  on  the  same  day,  and  the  copy  was  furnished 
by  me  on  the  following  day,  as  appears  by  my  note  to  your  lordship  of  that  date. 

So  iar  as  I  am  aware,  there  was  nothing  in  these  incidents  not  strictly  in  conformity 
with  official  diplomatic  usage,  the  dispatch  of  Mr.  Fish  being  one  of  a  numbereil 
series,  not  miirkcd  confidential,  and  liaving  been  officially  communicated  by  me,  in 
copy,  to  your  lordship,  expressly  that  it  might  bo  laid  before  your  lordship's  colleagues, 
her  Majesty's  government. 

It  did  not  occur  to  me,  either  at  our  interview  or  when  senduij;  to  your  lordship  the 
copy  of  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch,  that  the  transaction  was  other  than  a  purely  official  one ; 
or  that  the  communication  made  by  me,  on  authority  of  the  United  States  govern- 
ment, was  not  made  to  your  lordship  as  her  Majesty's  principal  secretary  of  state  for 
foreign  aff'airs. 

Your  lordship  did  me  the  honor  to  observe  that  your  silence  at  our  interview  did 
not  imply  that  there  was  not  anotlicr  side  to  the  argument  in  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch,  but 
was  only  because  of  the  wish  expressed  by  myself,  in  obedience  to  the  instructions  of 
my  government,  that  official  discussion  on  these  particular  topics  might,  in  future,  be 
conducted  in  Washington.  For  this  reason,  no  further  official  conversation  ensued  be- 
tween us  ou  that  occasion. 

On  the  19th  of  Novcuber,  (.is  I  am  informed  by  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States,)  her  Majesty's  envoy  at  Washington,  Mr.  Thornton,  called  at  the  Department 
of  State  and  read  to  Mr.  Fi.sh,  and  left  Avith  him  a  copy  of,  a  dispatch  addressed  by 
your  lordship  on  the  6th  of  November  hiPt  io  Mr.  Thornton,  dedicated  to  the  consider- 
ation of  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  of  the  25th  of  September  to  myself.  lu  this  dispatch  to 
Mr.  Thornton  your  lonlship  says : 

"  And  it  is  i)ecau8e  tliey  earnestly  desire  to  hasten  "the  period  at  which  these  im- 
portant objects  may  be  accomplished  that  her  Majesty's  government  have  determineil 
not  to  follow  Mr.  Fish  through  the  long  recapitulation  of  the  various  points  that  have 
been  discussed  in  tlie  voluminous  correspondence  that  has  taken  place  between  the 
two  governmeuts  for  several  years." 


Jl 


I      I! 

1 


16 


QUP:8TI0N8   PENDINO    JJETVVEEN    THE 


The  111 


>t'  thi 


ill,  like  tlii^  III 


th 


{iKiiit  tliti  (li.s|iatcli;  is  cU' 


ii^fiia^i)  I 
and  cxiiliuit.  For  iiniiortuiit  luid  nullicit^nt  n.-asoiw,  Htatttd  with  iirocisiou  Ity  ,vi)ur 
l(>nlHliii>,  her  MiiJeHty'H  (;(»v<'rnini'iit  aiuuiiin''i'  their  deterriiiiiatioii  ih>t  ^o  take  np  and 
diiiciiHH  tlio  iiointH  of  Mr.  FIhIi'h  dispatch  ol'  the  '2r)th  of  8e)iteiiili(M-.  Hut  it  in  nowhere 
siiKK<!8tod,  aH  one  of  tlioHe  reasonH,  that  the  Maid  disiiatcli  \»  not  an  ollkial  paper,  <liH- 
einMinK  oftlcinlly  niattern  of  moment  to  both  KovernmentN.  On  the  contrary,  your 
lordship,  throughout  your  diNpatuh  to  Mr.  Thornton,  HceniH  to  treat  that  of  Air.  Fish 
a8  ofttcial,  recapitulatln>{  and  respondinn  to  nniterini  parts  of  it ;  offering  responsive 
[iropositions  on  tlio  part  of  her  Majesty's  government ;  and,  in  faet,  impressing  u[ion 
the  whole  tone  of  your  reply  the  otlicial  stamp  of  her  Majesty's  govenuuent,  in  who.so 
nanu),  many  times  repeated  in  the  dispatch,  a  formal  du<asiou  on  an  important  subject 
is,  through  her  Majesty's  envoy,  to  be  eonveyeil  to  tins  government  of  the  United 
States. 

On  the  same  occasion,  above  alluded  to,  (namely,  on  the  19th  of  Novombev  Inst,)  Mr. 
Thornton  left  with  the  Secretary  of  Stati;  (as  I  am  ofHcially  informed)  an  unsigned 
paper  entitled  "  Notes,"  consisting  of  an  lU'guiuentative  commentary  on  the  contents 
of  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  of  the  ^.'ith  of  Seiitember,  and  the  Secretary  found  himself  at  a 
loss  to  comim-hend  the  purpose  of  lier  Majesty's  government.  He  was  in  doubt 
whether  it  did  or  did  not  intend  to  bo  understood  as  '■  determined  not  to  follow  "  him 
in  discussion  of  the  points  of  controversy  between  the  two  governments.  Your  lord- 
ship's dispatch  exfiressed  absolute  determination  not  to  do  it,  while,  nevertluless,  it 
seemed  to  be  done  in  faet  and  by  theses  "  Notes." 

I  am  informed  that  when  Mr.  Thornton  ma<le  the  above-mentioned  call  at  the  States 
Department,  on  the  IDth  of  November,  Mr.  Fish  was  on  the  jioint  of  departing  to  at- 
tend a  meeting  of  the  cabinet.  His  visit  had  iiot  been  expectt'd.  The  Secretary  of 
State  mentioned  to  him  the  necessity  of  his  imniediato  dojtarture,  hut,  at  his  reepiest, 
delayed  to  hear  your  lordship's  dispatch,  the  6th  of  November,  which  lie  had  been  in- 
structed to  read  to  Mr.  Fish,  and  to  leave  a  copy  of  it  if  reipiestcd. 

Mr.  Thornton  tluui  produced  a  longer  i»aper  Avhich,  as  ho  stated,  he  was  al«o  in- 
stnictcd  to  road.  Mr.  Fish  objected,  on  account  of  the  shortness  of  time,  as  he  could 
then  barely  roach  the  I'rcsideut  before  the  hour  appointed  for  the  cabinet  meeting. 

Mr.  Thornton  then  proposed  to  leave  the  pai)er  with  the  Secretary  of  State,  if  Im 
would  consider  it  a.i  having  been  read,  to  which  Mr.  Fish  assented,  reserving  the  right 
to  return  the  copy,  if  (m  perusal  he  should  tind  in  it  anything  (which,  as  ho  remarked, 
ho  did  not  think  at  all  probable)  that  would  bo  improper  or  wbjectionablo  to  place 
among  the  papers  of  the  department. 

With  this  understanding  Mr.  Fish  received  the  paper  entitled  (at  that  time)  "Notes," 
without  its  l)eing  read,  and  it  was  the  evening  of  that  day,  after  the  cabinet,  meeting, 
before  Mr.  Fish  kuew  its  contents.  He  had  nothing  to  excite  any  suspicion  that  your 
lordship  claimed  to  have  received  his  dispatch  (No.  70,  of  the  25th  of  September)  as  a 
communication  to  yourself  personally,  rather  than  as  a  representative  of  the  Queen's 
government.  Any  intimation  of  that  nature  would  doubtless  have  induced  a  very 
different  course  on  his  part  from  the  one  adopted,  while  your  lor.lshiii's  own  action,  so 
far  as  known  to  him,  had  negatived  any  such  hyi)othesis.  Hu  found  liimself  at  a  loss 
to  account  for  the  discreiiancy  between  the  views  of  hor  Majesty's  govor.'iment  as  offi- 
cially communicated  in  the  copy  of  your  lordship's  dispatch  of  November  6th  to  Mr. 
Thornton  and  the  views  of  the  unknown  writer  of  the  anonymous  "  Notes." 

"When  the  correspondence  was  called  for  by  the  Senate,  the  Secretary  of  State,  being 
ignorant  of  the  character  to  be  assigned  to  tiio  "  Notes,"  did  not  transmit  them  to  that 
body,  and  ho  instructed  mo  to  explain  to  your  lordship  the  reason  wliy  this  had  not 
been  done.  In  accordance  Avith  those  iustructious,  as  your  lordship  will  remember,  I 
had  the  honor,  at  an  interview  with  your  lordsbij)  on  the  12th  of  January  last,  to  read 
to  you  a  dispatch  of  Mr.  Fish  upon  this  subject.  In  that  paper,  cho  Secretary  of  State 
explains  to  me  that,  while  your  lordship's  dispatch  to  Mr.  Thornton,  of  the  6th  of  No- 
vember last,  a  copy  of  which  had  been  communicated  to  Mr.  Fish,  was  made  public, 
the  paper  entitled  "  Notes  on  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  to  Mr.  Motley  of  the  25th  of  Septem- 
ber, respecting  the  Alabama,  &c.,  claims,"  had  not  been  included  in  the  correspondence 
sent  to  the  Senate,  because,  when  Mr.  Thornton  handed  a  copy  of  the  "Notes,"  (which 
were  neither  dated  nor  signed,)  he  left  with  him  no  written  paper  to  indicate  that  they 
wero  to  be  regarded  definitely  and  oflicially  as  the  views  of  her  Majesty's  government 
in  the  matter  discussed  in  them. 

Your  lordship,  in  reply  to  the  observation  of  Mr.  Fish  that  the  "  Notes  "  in  <inestion 
wero  not  dated  nor  signed,  remarked  that  neither  date  nor  signature  to  such  a  mem- 
orandum was  necessary  or  customary,  as  the  dispatch  in  which  it  was  inclosed  was 
both  dated  and  signed. 

But  it  now  appears  that  tlio,iuclo8in(r  dispatch,  which  I  had  myself  never  seen  until 
it  was  printed  in  the  London  Gazette,  li.ad  not  been  read  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  nor 
communicated  to  him  in  copy,  and  that  he  was  consequently  in  ignorance  of  its  exist- 
ence.   It  would,  thorclbre,  have  been  iinpossiblc  for  him  to  publish  it. 

The  uncertainty  at  Washington  continued  until  the  receipt  of  the  London  Gazette 


I   1 

m 


..v' 


T 


tell,'  is  clciir 
Jii  I>.v  your 

Ilk*!  Il|l   iitul 

in  iiowIierH 
paper,  ilw- 
itiar.v,  your 
of  Air.  Fish 
rcMpoiiHivo 
BH.sitii;  upon 
nt,  in  whoso 
taut  Hubjeot 
the  L'mte(l 

•r  last,)  Mr. 
in  uuHitrned 
the  contfuts 
liinisclt'  at  a 

ill     (l(Ul)lt 

ollow  "  him 
Vonr  lonl- 
'itliik'ss,  it 

ut  the  8tat« 
I'tiiig  to  at- 
.Siicictary  of 
his  rcMiut'st, 
lad  Ijt't'ii  iu- 

hvas  al«o  iii- 
as  he  eould 
uieetiiig. 
State,  if  ho 
ng  tht)  riglit 
10  remarked, 
ible  to  place 

no)  "Notes," 
nof  meeting, 
an  that  your 
tciuhor)  as  a 
the  Queen's 
luced  a  very 
vn  action,  so 
self  at  a  loss 
ment  as  ofli- 
V  6th  to  Mr. 

State,  being 
bhem  to  that 
this  had  not 
remember,  I 
last,  to  read 
ary  of  State 

0  (Jth  of  No- 
uado  public, 

1  of  Septem- 
respondeuco 
tea,"  (which 
te  that  they 
government 

'  in  (piestion 
nich  a  mem- 
nclosed  was 

?r  seen  until 
)f  State,  nor 
of  its  cxist- 

lou  Ga:^ctto 


UNITED   STATES    AND    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


M 


It  wan  then  that  thn  Secretary  of  State  hhw  for  the  l\nt 


dinpatch,  written  by  your  lordship  to  Mr.  Thornton,  in  which  the 
maintained  by  your  lordship  in  the  former  note  of  the  same  date, 


of  the  'ilst  of  Dccembor  hmt. 

time  that  ttccoud 

oflQcial  choracter  mail 

which  ho  had  read  to  Mr.  Fish,  and  of  which  ho  hwl  furnished  a  copy,  was  disciaimed. 

It  was  this  publication  tliat  first  gave  to  those  "NotoH"  an  official  significance. 

Your  lordship  will  now  coniprenend  the  donbtfulnoM  of  the  Secretary  of  State  aa  tu 
the  position  in  this  regard  of  her  Majesty's  govornmont  at  the  moment  of  the  official 
communication  made  to  him  at  Washington. 

This  doubtfulness  has  made  it  seem  more  just  to  atlopt  the  course  of  comity  and  of 
favorable  construction,  and  before  coming  to  a  positive  conclusion  to  wait  for  retloctiou 
and  r<tr  snch  possible  solution  of  doubt  in  the  process  of  time  as  circumstances  might 
afford.  There  was  nothing  in  the  stato  of  the  controversy  to  forbid  such  a  course  or 
to  prejudice  by  it  any  interest  of  tho  United  States.  But  when  the  published  cor- 
respondence in  tho  Quzotte  of  tho  24th  December  arrived,  tho  preceding  uncertainty 
was  augmented. 

The  second  disjiatch  of  your  lordshh>  of  date  of  Cth  of  November,  now  coming 
under  tho  observation  of  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  first  time,  as  thus  published  by 
the  Foreign  Ofllco,  ma<le  him  aware,  to  his  surprise,  that  your  lordship  professed  to 
look  upon  his  dispatch  of  the  25th  of  September  as  not  being  of  a  strictly  official 
character,  and  as  being  commuuioated  to  your  lordship  personally  rather  than  as  the 
representative  of  the  Queen's  govornmeut,  and  that,  therefore,  you  did  not  think  it 
necessary,  in  your  official  reply  "  to  tho  communication  made  by"  myself,  to  express 
dissent  from  the  statements  in  that  dispatch. 

In  the  formal  determination  expressed  by  your  lordship  in  your  first  dispatch  of 
November  tho  Glh  to  Mr.  Thornton  not  to  pursue  tho  discussion,  and  in  the  delivery  of 
the  paper  entitled  "  Notes,"  there  soomod  to  bo  contradiction  between  words  and 
acts,  but  us  tho  "  Notes "  were  without  date  and  unsigned,  as  they  were  unofficial  in 
their  tenor  and  form,  and  as  therefore  they  did  not  aftord  tho  government  of  the 
United  States  ouportunity  to  treat  them  as  an  official  reply  of  the  Queen's  government, 
to  that  of  the  United  States,  it  was  necessary  for  tho  Secretary  of  State  to  leave  them' 
unanswered ;  for,  by  answering  them,  it  seemed  to  him  that  lie  Avould  bo  calling  in 
question  your  lordship's  frankness. 

Thus  tho  tenor  of  your  lordship's  second  dispatch  of  the  6th  of  November,  and  the 
appearance  of  the  "  Notes  "  in  tho  "  Correspondence  "  published  by  the  Foreign  Office, 
but  when  thus  nia<le  public  elevated  into  tho  dignity  of  "  Observations,"  served  to 
enhance  the  uncertainty  of  constioiction  in  this  respect  which  tho  delivery  of  the 
"Notes"  in  connection  with  your  lordshii)'s  first  dispatch  of  the  6th  of  November  had 
produced. 

Having  taken  into  consideration  thcso  various  incidents,  tho  President  is  now  de- 
sirous of  ascertaining  with  precision  whether  the  above-mentioned  "  Notes"  or  "  Ob- 
servations "  are  to  be  regarded  as  tho  official  act  of  the  Queen's  government  in  response 
to  tho  dispatch  of  tho  Secretary  of  State  of  the  25th  of  September  last.  In  that  dis- 
patch, as  I  have  nlretuly  had  the  honor  to  state,  the  President's  views  ■were  officially 
set  forth  for  the  information  not  of  your  lordship  personally,  but  of  tho  Queen's  gov- 
eniment,  the  President  wishing  neither  to  utter  nor  to  reply  to  any  but  tho  most 


uxplicit  propositions. 
If  the  "  Notes,"  or  " 


'  Observations,"  are  official,  he  deems  it  proper  that  tho  govern- 
ment of  tho  United  States  shall  treat  them  as  such  ;  and  so,  on  the  other  hand,  if  they 
are  unofficial. 

I  have,  therefore,  now  the  honor,  in  obedience  to  i-ecent  instructions  from  my  gov- 
ernment, to  request  your  lordship,  most  respectfully  and  courteously,  for  information 
whether  the  "  Notes  "  are  or  are  not  to  bo  treated  by  the  President  of  the  United  States 
as  an  official  exjwsition  of  tho  views  of  her  Majesty's  government. 

I  priiy  your  lordship  to  accept  tho  assurance  of  the  highest  consideration  with 
which  1  have  tho  honor  to  be,  my  lord,  your  lordship's  most  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  UOTHROP  MOTLEY. 
The  Right  Houocablo  the  Eaht,  of  Ci-arendon, 

.fc,  c)'c.,  ,)■(•. 


No.  8. 
Mr.  Motley  to  Mr.  Fish. 

[Received  March  31, 1870.] 

No.  282.]  Legation  op  the  United  States, 

London,  Alarch  1%  1870. 
Sir  :  Refemug  to  my  No.  278,  of  the  17th  instant,  in  which  was  iu- 
S.  Ex.  Doc.  114 2 


IS 


tiUE8TION8   PENDING    BETWEEN    THE 


closed  tlie  copy  of  a  noto  addre.sHed  by  inu  to  Lord  Clarendon,  (in  pur- 
suance of  ttiu  instructions  contained  in  your  No.  14!),)  unking  for  infer- 
niution  a«  to  the  precise  character  to  be  assijrnod  to  the  "  Notes  (or  Ob- 
servations) on  Mr.  Fisli's  di8i»atch  to  Mr.  Motley,  of  25th  8eptenil»er, 
respecting  the  Alabama  claims,"  £  have  now  the  honor  to  send  copies 
of  a  note  of  the  I8th  instant,  received  by  mo  this  n)orning,  in  reply  to 
my  above-mentioned  note,  and  of  n)y  note  to  his  lordship,  of  this  day's 
date. 

For  convenience  of  reference,  I  also  inclose  a  copy  of  the  printed  "  Oor- 
reapondenee  respecting  the  Alabama  claims,  1869-70,  presented  to  both 
Housesof  Parliament,  by  cominandof  her  Mtyesty,  1870,"  referred  to  in 
Lord  Clarendon's  said  note  of  18th. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedieut  servant, 

JOHN  LOTHROP  MOTLEY. 

Hon.  Hamilton  Fish, 

Secretary  of  State,  WashingtoUj  D.  0. 


/: 


■i 

i 

1 


■:ii    ! 


I 


rd  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Motley. 

FoREiON  Okfi    ;,  March  18, 1870, 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letti  i  of  the  12th  inntAnt; 
and  I  heg  to  state  to  yon  that  a  report  of  the  manner  in  which  the  paper  forwarded  in 
my  '•euoud  (1iei|iatch  to  Mr.  Thornton,  of  the  6th  of  Noveniher,  was  communicated  to 
Mr.  Fish,  in  given  in  the  dia|iatch  from  Mr.  Thornton,  of  the  22(1  of  N'tveinber,  pnh- 
liHbed  in  tlie  corn'spoudenco  recently  jiresented  to  Pa. ''anient,  of  wliic.i,  for  conveni- 
ence of  reference,  I  incloHe  a  co|iy.     Ill  this  dispatch  Mr.  Thornton  states : 

"In  compliance  with  the  inMtrn<;ti()  <«  contained  in  your  lordship's  dispatch  of  the 
6th  instant,  I  went  to  the  State  DL>]iaitinent  and  read  that  dispatch  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  leaving  a  copy  of  it,  at  his  request,  in  his  hands. 

"  I  then  explaineti  to  him  the  reason,  as  set  forth  in  your  lordship's  otho'  dispatch  of 
the  6th  instant,  which  had  induced  you  to  follow  his  example  as  to  the  form  which 
you  had  adopted  to  ex))res8  ycnir  di^s(•nt  from  the  statements  contained  in  his  dispat«h 
to  Mr.  Motley  of  the  y.'ith  of  September  lust,  after  which  I  proceeded  to  read  to  liira 
the  paper  containing  your  lordship's  observations,  and,  at  his  request,  gave  him  a  copy 
of  it, 

"  Mr,  Fish  heard  me  rend  both  the  above-mentioned  documents  without  making  any 
remark  whatever,  and  upon  my  concluding  merely  said  that  they  would  be  taken  into 
consideration  by  his  government,  at  the  same  time  expressing  his  hope  that  some 
nieaiiH  might  be  found  of  coming  to  an  amicable  arrangement  of  all  the  questions  at 
issue."  ( 

It  will  bo  seen,  therefore,  that  there  is  an  apparent  d'screpancy,  which  I  ha.o  no 
doubt  Mr.  Thornton  will  be  able  to  explain  to  Mr.  Fish,  between  the  accounts  respect- 
ively given  of  this  interview. 

In  reply  to  the  inquiry  contained  in  the  concluding  portion  of  your  letter,  I  have  the 
honor  t«>  request  that  you  will  inform  Mr.  Fish  that  the  paper  containing  my  observa- 
tions on  hie  dispatch  of  the  2.^th  of  September  was  furni.shiMl  to  Mr.  Thornton  to  be  read 
to  Mr,  Fish,  with  the  same  object  of  using  an  unreserved  frankness  in  its  statements, 
with  which  Mr,  Fish's  di8i)atch  v  juj  addressed  to  you,  in  order  that  it  might  be  read 
to  me. 

For  the  reasons  given  in  my  other  dispatch  to  Mr,  Thornton  of  .the  6th  oi  Novem- 
ber, her  Majesty's  government  had  determined  not  to  rejily  categorically  to  Mr.  Fish's 
dis)mtch,  and  the  jiaper  thus  (!oinmunibate<l  by  my  directions  to  Mr.  Fish  was  accord- 
ingly confined  to  some  observations  mi  matters  with  regar.)  to  which  it  appeared  to  her 
Majesty's  government  from  Mr.  Fish's  disjiatch  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  misapiirehended  the  ^>ositioll  in  wliiih  this  coinitry  stood. 

These  observations,  therelore,  correctly  represtMit  the  views  of  her  Majesty's  govern- 
ment. They  were  in  the  nature  of  an  historical  statement,  founded,  as  is  shown  on  the 
face  (if  them,  on  the  correspondence  which  has  i)assed  between  the  two  governments, 
on  papers  presented  to  Congress,  on  th"  judgments  of  United  States  prize  courts,  and 
on  other  public  records,  and  were  intended  as  a  recajiitulation  of  facts  and  argnmentSi 
all,  or  nearly  all,  of  which  have  been  repeatedly  referred  to  during  the  previous  (iis- 
cuwsion,  while  the  ob8ei"vation8  omitted  all  reference  to  various  topics  which  might 
have  been  introduce*!  into  them,  had  it  not  been  the  desire  of  her  Majesty's  govern- 


UNITED    8TATK8    AND   GREAT    BRITAIN. 


19 


(in  pur- 
Jfor  infor- 
r.s  (or  Ob- 
li>toiiil»er, 
Id  copies 

reply  to 
^blH  day's 

|ed  «  Oor- 
M  to  both 
bed  to  in 


ITLEY. 


18,  1870. 
til  iiiHtant; 
rwanlert  in 
■nicateil  to 
•iber,  pub- 
or  couveni- 

itch  of  the 
"cretaiy  of 

flispatch  of 
«>riii  wbioh 
ill  <1i8|)af«li 
md  to  liirn 
liiin  a  copy 

taking  any 
tiiiceu  into 
tliat  some 
estions  at 

f  have  no 
ts  lespeot- 

r  linve  the 
r  olweivtt- 
t»  be  rend 
atenieiita, 
it  be  read 

I  Novera- 
Hr.  Fish's 
18  accord- 
ed to  lier 
»e  United 

i govern- 
'II  on  the 
mmeiits, 
iirts,  and 
;ument8, 
iuus  dis- 
h  might 
gov«Tn- 


ment  to  niiirow  um  much  as  poHsiblc  wliat  tht'y  think  the  unpro(lt«))Ic  Held  of  contro< 
verny. 

Indeed,  almost  tbo  only  opinion  adverted  to  in  them  Is  one  in  which  her  Mn^lenty's 
government  are  glad  to  recognize  that  (he  United  States  government  eoncnr,  and  which 
consiHts  in  u  citation  of  the  pnipnsal  made  by  her  Majesty's  government  in  Oecomber, 
1865,  for  a  revision  of  tlio  international  law  of  maritime  iiiMitrnllty. 

I  have  the  iionor  to  be,  with  the  highest  eoiiHideration,  sir,  yonr'mosl  obedient,  hum- 
ble servant, 

CLAUENnON. 
John  Lotiihop  Motlky,  Esq.,  ^fc,  if-r.,  ,fr. 


Mr,  Motlqf  to  T^nl  Clarendon. 

LlUlATIOS  OK  TIIK  UNITKI)  STATKS, 

lAtndon,  March  19,  1870. 
My  Loui>:  I  have  the  honor  io  uoknowledgo  tho  receipt  of  your  lordship's  note  of 
the  18th  instant  in  answer  to  mi  lo  of  the  I2th,  ccmveying  tho  request  of  my  govern- 
ment for  information  in  referonci  to  tho  precise  elmraeter  to  be  assigned  to  tho  "Notes 
(or  Observations)  on  Mr.  Fish's  i]is|mtcli  of  the  'ifitb  of  Sejiteinber,  IHC)!),"  an(l  to  state 
that  a  copy  of  yonr  above-meiit'oned  note  of  the  IHtb  instant  Iiiim  licen  Cnrwardefl  to 
the  .Secretary  of  .State  by  itiis.da.v'H  steamer. 
Renewing,  iVc, 

.lOIIN   T.OTHKOP  MOTLEY. 
The  Kiprht  Honorable  the  Eaki.  cif  ri.AUKNDox, 

<(c.,  ffc.  .t'c. 


No,  0. 
Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Motleif. 


No.  190.1 


13EPABTMENT  OF  STATE, 

Washington,  April  25,  1870. 

SiK  :  1  have  to  iickuowledge  your  dispatch.  No.  278,  of  17th  March, 
in  which  you  transmit  a  copy  of  your  note  of  12th  Marcli  to  the  Earl 
of  Clarendon,  which  presents  to  liis  lordshij),  witii  great  accuracy,  the 
circumstances  under  which  one  of  his  lordship's  dispatches  to  Mr. 
Thornton  of  Cth  November  last,  and  a  paper  at  that  time  entitled 
"Notes,"  and  subsequently  called  "  Observations,"  were  presented  to  me 
and  came  to  the  knowledge  of  this  government.  It  also  presents,  cor- 
rectly, tho  surprise  with  which  I  first  saw,  in  the  London  Gazette  of 
24th  December,  the  second  dispatch  of  the  Earl  of  (Clarendon  to  Mr. 
Thornton,  also  dated  6th  November. 

You  had  been  .advised  by  me,  in  a  dispatch  of  14th  of  February,  of  the 
particulars  of  an  interview  between  Mr.  Thornton  and  myself  on  19th 
of  November,  when  he  read  to  me  the  former  of  these  two  dispatches  of 
the  same  date,  ((ith  November,)  and  left  me,  without  its  being  read,  but 
with  an  understanding  to  consider  it  read,  under  a  O/ontingerst  itiserva- 
tion,  the  paper  then  entitled  "  Notes." 

Your  note  to  his  lordship  of  12th  March  embodies,  acciurately,  my 
statement  to  you. 

1  have  also  to  acknowledge  your  No.  282,  of  19th  March,  communicat- 
ing a  copy  of  Lord  Clarendon's  reply,  dated  March  18,  to  your  note  of  12th 
March.  In  this  reply,  Lord  Clarendon  quotes  Mr.  Thornton's  dispatch 
to  him  of  22d  November  last,  and  adds:  "It  will  be  seen,  therefore, 
that  there  is  an  apparent  di.'sorepancy,  which  I  have  (he  had)  no  doubt 


I 


20 


QUESTIONS   PENDING    BETWEEN    THE 


ti'  ■: 


Mr.  Thonitou  will  be  able  to  explain  to  Mr.  Fish,  bc.weea  the  accounts 
respectively  given  of  this  intcr\  iew." 

I  sincerely  regret  this  reference  of  his  lordship,  after  a  careful  review 
of  the  statement  in  my  dispatch,  No.  149,  of  14th  February,  of  what  oc- 
curred at  the  interview  between  Mr.  Thornton  and  myself  of  19th  No- 
vember last.  I  am  unable  to  lind  any  alteration  which  either  my  own 
memory  or  the  private  note  of  the  interview  made  on  the  day  of  its  oc- 
currence will  allow  to  be  made ;  neither  do  1  lind  anything  therein  stated 
which  a  very  friendly  interchange  of  views  at  a  recent  conference  with 
the  accomplished  and  estimable  representative  of  her  Majesty  to  this 
government  suggests  as  at  variance  with  the  actual  occurrence  at  that 
interview. 

It  is  true  that  1  have  from  Mr.  Thornton  that  he  quite  confidently 
thinks  that  he  not  only  read  to  me  Lord  Clarendon's  dispatch,  published 
as  No.  6,  in  the  supplement  to  the  London  Gazette  of  24th  IJecember, 
1869,  but  that  lie  also  read  to  me  his  lordship's  other  dispatch  of  the 
same  date,  (November  (»,)  published  as  No.  7  in  the  Gazette.  Herein 
our  memories  are  at  variance;  my  recoliectioTi  suggests  very  confidently 
that  only  one  note  was  read. 

in  this  recollection  1  am  sustained  by  a  memorandum  which  1  made 
on  the  day  of  the  interview,  by  the  fact  that  I  could  not  hsive  heard 
that  second  dispatch  read,  and  have  failed  to  be  impressed  by  and  to 
have  noticed  the  declaration  therein  that  Lord  (Jlarendon  regards  mine  of 
25th  September  as  not  being  of  a  strictly  oiiicial  character,  and  as  being 
communicated  to  him  personally,  rather  than  as  the  representative  oi' 
the  Queen's  government;  by  the  further  fact  that  this  second  dispatch 
did  not  authorize  its  being  read ;  and,  again,  by  the  fact  that  on  the 
22d  of  Noveml)er,  only  three  days  after  the  interview,  when  Mr.  Thorn- 
ton oilicially  communicated  its  result  to  his  government,  he  did  not 
allude  to  his  having  read  the  second  dispatch. 

With  the  exception  of  this  one  point,  I  am  not  aware  of  any  diii'er- 
ence  with  reg.ard  to  the  interview  of  19th  November,  which  a  very  free 
and  frank  conference  with  Mr.  Thornton  has  suggested ;  I  fail  to  sec; 
anything  which  will  justify  an  alteration  of  the  account  given  in  mine 
of  14th  February,  and  repeated  by  you  in  your  note  of  12th  iMarcli. 

1  might,  however,  havc>  added  to  that  statement  what  I  now  stat(^ 
viz:  that  on  the  next  occasion,  afrer  the  interview  of  19th  November^ 
when  again  i  met  Mr.  Thorntoii,  and  in  puvsi.ance  of  the  understand- 
ing with  which  the  "Notes''  had  been  left  with  me,  without  being  then 
read,  1  told  -lim  tliat  1  had  read  them  and  determined  to  retain  the 
copy,  which  he  was  thereby  authorized  to  consider  me  as  having  re- 
(pxested  at  the  close  of  its  (constructively)  being  read  to  me  ;  tliat  1  did 
not  accept  nnmy  of  the  views  presented,  and  thought  them  open  to  re- 
ply; but  that,  as  Lord  Clarendon  in  his  dispatch  had  expressed  the  de- 
termination of  her  Majesty's  government  not  to  follow  me  in  the  points 
discussed  in  mine  of  25th  September,  1  should  not  pursue  the  discussion 
wiiich  might  be  suggested  by  this  paper.  Nothing  could  be  more  ex- 
plicit than  t!>e  words  used  by  his  lordship  in  the  dispatch  No.  (J,  of  0th 
November,  whici'  JMr.  Thornton  was  directed  to  read  to  me,  tluit  "  her 
Majesty's  government  have  det(irniined  not  to  follow  Mr.  Fish  through 
the  long  recapitulation  of  the  various  jiolnts  that  have  been  discussed 
in  the  voluminous  correspondence  that  has  taken  place  between  the 
governments  for  several  jears." 

rhe  Ear)  of  Clarendon,  in  his  secoinl  dispatch  to  Mr.  Thornton,  No- 
vember 0,  1809,  (No.  7,  in  the  Gazette,)  draws  a  distinction  between 
the  "  Observations"  ("Notes")  which  it  indosesand  the  views  set  forth 


UNITED    STATES    AND    GREAT    BRITAIN. 


m 


ft 

■ 


iu  bis  No.  G,  of  tlie  same  date,  to  the  same  gentleman,  which  v/a.s  otli- 
cially  communicated  to  me. 

His  No.  0  assumes  to  express  the  otHcial  views  of  her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment. Three  paragi'aphs  are  ilevoted  to  describing-  his  interview 
with  yourself  and  his  reception  of  a  copy  of  my  dispatch  of  25th  Sep- 
tember. Four  paragraphs  follow,  reciting  the"  substance  of  that  dis- 
patch. Seven  successive  paragraphs  then  state  the  views  of  her  Ma- 
jesty's government  on  difterent  points,  (including  the  determination, 
above  cited,  not  to  follow  me  in  the  discussion,)  an<l  the  last  paragraph 
instructs  Mr.  Thornton  to  read  the  dispatch  to  me. 

His  No.  7  incloses  the  "Notes"  or  " Observations."'  The  lirst  para- 
graph refers  to  the  No.  0  as  containing  the  '•  official  reply  to  the  com- 
munication made  by  Mr.  Motley,"  {i.  c,  to  my  dispatch  of  25th  Septem- 
ber.) In  the  second  ])aragraph  Lord  Clarendon  says:  "I  desire,  how- 
ever, to  place  before  Mr.  Fish,  in  the  same  manner  as  Mr.  Motley  was 
instructed  to  place  before  me,  some  observations  that  have  occurred  to 
me,"  and  he  accordingly  transmits  a  paper  to  that  effect. 

The  obvious  conclusion  from  this  language  would  bo  that  a  clear  dis- 
tinction is  drawn  between  the  "ofiicial  reply  to  the  communication  made 
to  Mr.  Motley"  and  some  observations  that  had  occurred  to  Lord  Claren- 
don; that  the  reply  (viz:  the  dispatch  No.  6  to  Mr.  Thornton)  was  the 
expression  of  her  Majesty's  government — official  correspondence  be- 
tween that  government  and  this ;  that  the  "  Observations"  (inclosed  in 
No.  7)  were  individual  observations  of  Lord  Clarendon. 

The  publication  of  this  dispatch.  No.  7,  in  the  London  Gazette  of  24th 
December  led  to  my  instructions  to  you,  which  were  embodied  in  your 
note  of  12th  of  March,  to  inquire  whether  the  "Notes"  are  or  are  not  to 
be  treated  by  the  President  as  an  official  exposition  of  the  views  of  her 
Majesty's  government. 

Lord  Clarendoii's  reply  to  this  (juestion  is  not  as  expli(*it  as  niight 
have  been  desired.  His  lordship  still  draws  the  distinction  between  the 
views  contained  in  No.  0  and  those  contained  in  N:).  7.  He  says  that 
"  her  Majesty's  government  had  determined  not  to  reply  categoriuilly 
to  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch,"  and  that  the  paper  communicated  to  me  by  his 
direction  was  .accordingly  confined  to  some  observations  on  matters  with 
regard  to  which  it  appeared  to  her  Majesty's  government  from  3Ir.  Fislfs 
dispatch  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  misapprehended  the 
position  in  which  this  country  (CJreut  Britain)  stood,''  thus  maintaining 
the  distinction  previously  observed  between  tlu'  official  character  «»f  dis- 
patch No.  G  and  that  of  the  indosure  in  No.  7. 

From  this  it  would  appear  that  the  government  of  tlu»  irnited  States 
is  warranted  in  drawing  the  conclusion  that,  although  Lord  (Hareudon's 
colleagues  may  individually  or  collectively  concur  with  hi  in  in  the  views 
expressed  in  the  "Notes"  or  "Observations," that  paper  is  nevertheless 
not  to  be  regarded  as  an  "official  expression"  on  the  part  of  her  ^Majesty's 
government. 

To  treat  them  as  part  of  the  correspondence,  and  to  answer  them  offi- 
cially would  not  only  open  again  what  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  calls  "the 
unprofitable  field  of  controversy,"  bnt  might  possibly  widen  that  field 
by  diawing  into  discussion  still  other  points,  and  make  it  even  more- 
unproiitable,  and  less  promising  of  hope  for  the  disposition  of  the  exist- 
ing »juestion. 

We  do  not  believe  it  the  intent  of  either  government,  and  it  is  cer- 
tainly no  part  of  the  wish  of  this  government,  to  extend  the  discussion. 

Acting  therefore  in  the  sense  expressed,  this  government  will,  anless 
a  different  course  be  invited  by  her  Majesty's  government,  continue  to 


!■ 


22 


QtTESTIONS   PENDING   BETWEEN   THE 


regard  tlie  "Notes"  as  uo  part  of  the  correspondence,  but  a  paper  con- 
taining, ill  the  language  of  Lord  Clarendon  in  his  No.  7  to  Mr.  Thornton, 
of  November  6,  some  obsorvations  that  had  occurred  to  him,  which  ho 
desired  to  place  before  me  i^ersonally  rather  than  as  the  representative 
of  this  government,  which  were  received  by  me  as  not  an  official  com- 
munication from  her  Majesty's  government  to  this  government,  and  to 
which,  when  they  had  been  read,  I  orally  replied  that  I  dissented  from 
many  of  the  views  and  statements  presented,  but,  influenced  by  Lord 
Clarendon's  expressed  determination  not  to  pursue  the  discussion,  I 
rested  upon  the  verbal  expression  of  dissent. 

You  will  be  pleased  to  read  this  dispatch  to  her  Majesty's  principal 
secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  and  will  leave  a  copy  thereof  with 
him. 


I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 
J.  LoTHROP  Motley,  Esq. 


HAMILTON  FISH, 


The  11 
*  rccnpi 
•eforred 

HorA 
ua  set  t' 
passed  I 
ineut  an 
tiuno  a  < 
inent  be 
opiniouE 

You  w 
one. 


EUWA 


No.  10. 

Mr.  Fish  to  3fr.  Motley. 

No.  211.]  Department  of  State, 

Washinrjton,  June  10, 1.S70. 
Sir  :  I  transmit  for  your  information  a  copy  of  an  instruction  of  the 
24th  ultimo,  addressed  by  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Thornton  as  a 
response  to  the  instruction  addressed  to  you  on  the  25th  of  April,  and 
communicated  by  you  to  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  on  the  17th  ultimo,  re- 
lating to  the  character  to  be  assigned  to  the  notes  or  observations  touch- 
ing the  subject  of  the  claims  against  the  government  of  Great  Britain, 
growing  out  of  the  course  pursued  by  that  government  toward  th« 
United  States  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

HAMILTON  FISH. 


Lord  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Thornton. 

FouEiGN  Okfick,  May  24,  1870. 

Sir  :  Her  Majesty's  jjoveniinent  have  had  undor  their  consideration  the  dispatch 
from  Mr.  Fish  commuuicuted  to  me  by  Mr.  Motley  on  the  I7th  instant,  and  of  which 
a  copy  was  inclosed  iu  uiy  dispatch  No.  204,  of  the  21st  instant.  containinK  further  rep- 
resentations respecting  the  nieinorandiini  on  the  Alabama  claims,  whicii  was  trans- 
mitted to  you  in  my  dispatch  No.  306,  of  the  6th  of  November  last. 

In  the  dispatch  from  Mr.  Fish  of  the  25th  of  September,  upon  some  parts  of  which  the 
memorandum  Avas  iu  the  nature  of  an  historical  comment,  Mr.  Fish  had  instructed  Mr. 
Motley  that  the  sole  object  of  the  President  was  "  to  state  the  ))ositiou  and  maintaiu 
the  attitude  of  the  United  States  in  the  various  relations  and  aspects  of  this  grave  con- 
troversy with  Great  Britain.  It  is  the  object  of  this  paper,  (which  you  are  at  liberty 
to  read  to  Lord  Clarendon,)"  Mr.  Fish  continued,  "to  state  calmly  and  dispassionately, 
with  a  more  unreserved  freedom  than  might  bo  used  iu  one  addressed  directly  to  the 
Queen's  government,  what  this  government  seriously  considers  the  injuries  it  has  suf- 
fered." 

The  memorandum  wsus  furnished  to  yon,  as  I  informed  Mr.  Motley  in  my  letter  of  tho 
18th  of  March,  to  be  read  to  tho  United  States  Secretary  of  State  with  the  same  object 
of  using  an  unreserved  frankness. 

Although  her  Majesty's  government  considered  that  they  could  not  allow  tho  allega* 
tions  in  Mr.  Fish's  dispatch  of  September  to  pass  without  observ.ation,  it  wa«  by  119 
means  their  desire  to  prolong  or  to  extend  the  controversy. 


^ 


UNITED   STATES   AND   GREAT   BRITAIN. 


23 


The  iiiiiuioiamliini  therefore  was  confined,  as  I  have  already  stated  to  Mr.  Motley,  to 
ft  rucapitulutioii  of  facts  and  arjrninunts,  all  or  nearly  all  of  which  have  been  repeatedly 
tefurred  to  during  the  previous  discussion. 

Her  Majesty's  government,  though  prepared,  if  called  upon,  to  maintain  their  views 
tia  set  forth  iu  the  niemorandum  and  iu  the  preceding  commnnieatious  which  have 
passed  between  the  tw(»  governments,  entirely  agree  with  Mr.  Fish  that,  for  the  settle- 
ment and  disposition  of  the  questions  at  issue,  it  is  neither  useful  nor  expedient  to  cou- 
tinno  a  controversial  correspondence  in  which  there  is  so  little  hope  of  either  govern- 
ment beiug  able  to  convince  the  other,  and  in  which  their  respective  position  and 
opinions  hav  been  so  amply  recorded  and  sustained. 

You  will  read  this  dispatch  to  Mr.  Fish,  and  give  him  a  copy  of  it  should  ho  requii-o 
one, 

I  am,  &c., 

CLARENDON. 

Edwaud  TnoBNTON,  Esq.,  C.  B.,  ^c,  <f  c,  cjc. 


^ 


